[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]

cyb - cyberpunk

“There will come a time when it isn't "They're spying on me through my phone", anymore. Eventually, it will be, "My phone is spying on me.””
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

BUY LAINCHAN STICKERS HERE

STREAM » LainTV « STREAM

[Return][Go to bottom]

File: 1434319091073.jpg (36.27 KB, 512x512, anarcho-socialism.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

 No.12031[Last 50 Posts]

Let's have a thread about anarcho-socialism.
Here are some good sauces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_Democracy

Also keep in mind:
Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons while retaining respect for personal property.
>>

 No.12035

I'd really much rather have a Minarchy than full on Anarchy. Tough I really do like Anarchy.

>>

 No.12039

Hello my libertarian comrade.

>>

 No.12046

Do you guys think there's a way to transition to anarchy peacefully? Or is anarchy, by definition, the effect of a revolution?

And if you think it could be done peacefully, how would you go about it, or what would it look like?

>>12035
I don't get it. You like it but you don't?

>>

 No.12049

File: 1434339630772-0.jpg (164.59 KB, 736x482, p.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1434339630772-1.jpg (53.97 KB, 881x695, 01-Noam_Chomsky.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12031
anarcho-sindicalist reporting
>>12046
depends on the situation

when an act of violence is justified

>>

 No.12051

>>12046

Weakening the state progressively until there's no longer a need for it. All this watched over by dedicated platformists who agitate the workers. Just an idea.

>>

 No.12052

anarcho-socialism neither satisfies anarchists nor socialists

it's not so much anarchy as a more opaque government

>>

 No.12053

>>12031

Anarchy isn't a government
it's the absence of one
Anarchy just creates a void for a government to step in
It's human nature, eventually government will be formed
unless you have legislature or a standing army to cut down or quell anyone who tries to start a new government, but then where the fuarrrk are you?

>>

 No.12054

>>12053
>It's human nature
Why do you think that? What is human nature, anyway?

>>

 No.12055

>>12054
Expanding on that question, how much of what we assume is human nature are actually stories that we have been told our entire lives? Such as the idea that a government (in the way we currently have governments) is an inevitable result if a group grows big enough.

>>

 No.12056

>>12046
Theoretically yes,but "the stars have to align" :P
>>12052
I am an anarchist and I love it.
>>12053
Anarchy =/= Anarchism.
Anarchism is a movement that wants to create a society without any kind of forced hierarchy. Not a society without rules. However all rules are not compulsory participatory(i.e. if you don't like the rules you can just leave that anarchic society). The same goes for any hierarchy in such a society,if you don't like it,you can try to change it,but you can also just leave.

The governments that step in after the void is created usually happen because the leaders of the revolt never really had anarchism in mind.

The closest thing we have to anarchy today is probably freetown Christiania.
However the closest thing we had in history were the various factions in the Russian revolutions,however those wereunfortunately crushed by the Bolsheviks.

>>

 No.12057

>>12055
The only thing that is 99% confirmed to be genetic knowledge and not acquired knowledge and habits is the way the babies find the mothers nipple for the first time.

>>

 No.12071

>>12054
Forming a group centered around a leader. In that group either being a leader self, yielding leadership to someone else even if self wants to be the leader or wanting a someone else to be the leader. Anarchist communes throughout history have not been exceptions to this.

>>

 No.12074

>>12071

Leaders are not necessarily hierarchical. The community can have a person or a group who guides them. That doesn't imply a president or a state though.

>>

 No.12075

>>12056
>Anarchism is a movement that wants to create a society without any kind of forced hierarchy.
Well, to expand on that, what they believe is that power isn't self-justifying, and its continuation must be based on consent.

>>

 No.12080

>>12071
The difference in anarchism is a firm belief that you must always be allowed to ditch the leader.

>>

 No.12081

>>12074
>person or a group who guides them
>guides
Sounds like Papacy. Pope and cardinals are guides for christendom. And then it kinda bloated into massive land holdings, deciding who can rule commons and the inquisition.

>doesn't imply a president or a state though

Papal State isn't really a state either. Its guide just happens to have a lot of willing followers while having direct control over none.

>>12080
I fail to see any difference to n+1 regime overthrows in history.

>>

 No.12087

>>12081
A Papal state's leaders follow an appeal to authority. They believe that their leader has knowledge passed down to him by God. In an Anarchic society a leader must justify his right to be there based on his actions, not some faith.

Basically what >>12074 said. Anarchism isn't against organizations and leaders as long as they justify themselves and don't HAVE to be listened to.

In any form of government the people always have the control. Always. The trick of the state is to make them believe that they don't.

>>

 No.12245

So,any alternative culture centers in your city/town? My 10000 heads town has one.

>>

 No.12246

Could anyone dump some anarchy related anime images?

>>

 No.12247

File: 1434837203396-0.png (445.65 KB, 1040x540, we-live-in-perverted-times.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1434837203396-1.jpg (219.94 KB, 900x1162, 1418547503304.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12246
Are you looking for a certain image?

>>

 No.12248

>>12247
I haven't seen the second image. Where is the first one from, and is it modified?

>>

 No.12256

File: 1434873807129.png (79.7 KB, 500x260, naughty thoughts.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>12248
The first one is from a hentai manga called Cast Aoi, and yes it is modified; the image attached is the original.

>>

 No.12557

>>12245
My town is ten times that size and it's considered impossible to do anything like that here. People tend to move away before they can create anything sustainable and just move somewhere where things are already happening. What do you do at your center by the way?

>>

 No.12559

>>12031
You're totally right, here let me hand over my hard earned capital. The "people" totally deserve it more than I do.

>>

 No.12560

>>12559
Why do you reply to posts you didn't even read?

>>

 No.12562

File: 1435620072212.jpg (32.19 KB, 293x500, 1429201724071.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12559
> earned
How?

>>

 No.12566

>>12560
It's a thread about anarcho-socialism no? Under your system I would lose a substantial amount of wealth. I'm I not allowed to ask why you think I should lose it? Or is this a fan thread and not a discussion thread?

>>12562
Over years, performing services in exchange for currency. I took a portion of this and then lent it to others who needed starting capital to pursue their dreams.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not some 'tax is theft' libertarian. I'm actually curious why I should give this all up.

>>

 No.12567

>>12566
I can't help noting that you didn't deny the fact that you didn't read before posting, as was suggested.

>>

 No.12568

>>12056
>Anarchism is a movement that wants to create a society without any kind of forced hierarchy. Not a society without rules. However all rules are not compulsory participatory(i.e. if you don't like the rules you can just leave that anarchic society). The same goes for any hierarchy in such a society,if you don't like it,you can try to change it,but you can also just leave.

I agree with this, but it often comes across sounding a little weak; most people spend too long making the moral-political argument against hierarchy and don't propose actual mechanisms for anarchic self-organization. A functional society in modern times needs mechanisms for large-scale and highly complex organization. Most of us have never experienced non-hierarchical or non-monetary systems.

Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy

>>

 No.12569

>>12568
>Most of us have never experienced non-hierarchical or non-monetary systems.

Many of us have but only as a part time thing, between wage work or school or whatever. As for structuring our whole lives that way, complete with procuring food and other goods and maintaining whatever infrastructure, not really. There are historical examples though, namely the Spanish revolutionaries and various communities in Russia before the Bolsheviks snuffed out the "competition" across the country.

>>

 No.12570

>>12567
Dude it's like 5 lines long I read it.

>>

 No.12571

>>12569
Right, as soon as I posted I wished i'd tacked '...for day-to-day living' onto that sentence.

>>

 No.12575

>>12568
i think the main argument is that all forms of authority must be justified
i agree that some forms of authority are necesary

>>

 No.12576

>>12575
How does one justify authority? What is an example of a justified authority?

>>

 No.12578

>>12575
Why should some forms of authority be necessary? Authority limits the complexity of action available to the whole structure to the complexity that the authority can manage.

>>

 No.12579

>>12578
Wat? Can you be more specific? Could you give an example of an action that is limited?

>>

 No.12580

>>12579
Okay, map out a hierarchical control structure. That would be a branching tree diagram.

Now, the branch tips are your people on the ground. You have to coordinate them to do the work the organization needs to do.

You can trust them to be self-sufficient for simple, non-critical tasks, but when they find a task too confusing or too important, they pass it up the chain to their superior, who either passes a command back down or delegates the choice further up the chain.

This works very well for coordinating large-scale, simple work. It does not work well for coordinating large and complex work. Complex tasks would be ones where there are many possible actions, many of which will lead to failure. Under those conditions, more and more of the people on the ground will be passing more and more tasks up the chain.

The higher up the chain these problem tasks go, the fewer people there are to manage them. In the extreme, more information is passed to the one individual at the top than that individual can manage, and the whole structure can no longer make appropriate decisions in a timely manner.

tl;dr, hierarchy works by piping important information into smaller and smaller channels, this is great when the quantity of information is inversely proportionate to its importance but not great otherwise

>>

 No.12581

>>12580
&
>Could you give an example of an action that is limited?
The classic examples would be the failures of Russian communist central planning. Economic complexity on a continental scale was greater than their control structures could manage.

>>

 No.12582

>>12579
I'm asking for an example, not a model. Google has 55,000 employees, they build, manage, and run some of the most complex systems in the world and are incredibly successful at it. Are they not hierarchical?

>>12581
So you are saying the failure of the Soviets to plan their economies is why we should have anarcho-socialism? I'm confused, wouldn't that be an argument for decentralized control of capital?

>>

 No.12583

>>12582
>Are they not hierarchical?
Google began with a flat non-hierarchical structure and adopted hierarchies to speed certain efforts later. They still do a lot to encourage initiative from the subordinates rather than relying on hierarchical control.

>So you are saying the failure of the Soviets to plan their economies is why we should have anarcho-socialism? I'm confused, wouldn't that be an argument for decentralized control of capital?

What I'm saying is that hierarchy is effective for some tasks and ineffective for others. A country that used hierarchy *or* non-hierarchy as an all-purpose structure would fail. Each is good for some things and bad for others. It's more effective to view forms of organization as task-specific strategies than as all-encompassing systems.

>>

 No.12584

>>12583

>Began with a flat structure

Yeah, when you have two dudes in a dorm room that works. Name a single 55,000 person organization that doesn't have a hierarchy.

>What I'm saying is that hierarchy is effective for some tasks and ineffective for others

No one disagrees with this.

What does any of this have to do with collective ownership of capital?

>>

 No.12585

>>12584
>Yeah, when you have two dudes in a dorm room that works. Name a single 55,000 person organization that doesn't have a hierarchy.

Plenty of markets have >55,000 constituent actors. Wikipedia peaked at 56,000 active editors. tumblr aggregates news using multiple millions of active users. Of course there are hierarchies active in the maintenance of these organizations, but most members are not subordinate to the others.

Also
>if X is so great why doesn't everyone do X
Inertia and lock-in count for a lot.

>>

 No.12586

>>12585
Are you kidding me? Dude we are talking about organizations that produce complex products. Not social media.

Once again, what does any of this have to do with the collective ownership of capital?

>>

 No.12587

>>12586
>Are you kidding me? Dude we are talking about organizations that produce complex products. Not social media.

Wikipedia isn't a complex production? Lol.

>Once again, what does any of this have to do with the collective ownership of capital?

It's a long tangent. Conversations usually have those.

>>

 No.12588

>>12587
Wikipedia is simple. It's a google doc with a forum for bitching and moaning.

Hell, it's actually fairly hierarchical. Look at the way the editors are structured.

>>

 No.12590

>>12588
Democratic administrations are also largely sets of documents and processes for editing them.

Most of the editor structure is specialization, not authority.

>>

 No.12616

>>12557
It used to be a coffe shop, there still are concerts of alternative music, mostly punk rock and ska.
It also acts as a youth center. There also used to be public computers. However it got downsized because some asshole called the inspection 3+ times in a single month. The same asshole shut down a few more coffee shops that way (protip he owns several coffee shops downtown himself).

>>

 No.12618

Also I have seen an alternative culture center in a 5000 citizen town. It was self organised mostly by college students and high schoolers and it was in a former garage building. I think it still exists.

>>

 No.12619

>>12566
Well you would not lose personal property.
And any property you would lose would be given back to you in a way that life in the community would be of higher quality.

>>

 No.12631

>>12576
The authority of the expert?

>>

 No.12639

>HAPPY ANARCHO-BIRTHDAY A731

I don't get it. Did something happen involving Anarchists? I feel bad as a lefty not having heard anything.

>>

 No.12640

>>12035
Yeah, I'm that way too. Minarchism seems to be a good rift between chaos and a reasonable level of government existence.

I'm still conflicted on where I am with socialism. I'm certainly on the left, but I don't know whether to lean more in favor of minimal Mixed economy or a minimal libertarian socialist society.

>>

 No.12642

>>12639
I believe A731 is a mod? It was Junk yesterday.
I think the "anarcho" is just making fun of us.

>>

 No.12646

>>12642
>I believe A731 is a mod
He's an admin.
>It was Junk yesterday.
Their birthdays just happen to be in a row. Interesting, right?

>>

 No.12651

>>12619
I know I would not lose my personal property. I've been exposed to this perspective before this thread.

I would have less than I started, so no it wouldn't be given back to me. How would the community be of a higher quality? You have no idea what community I live in.

>>

 No.12674

>>12651
Well you would not lose it, it would simply be shared. Other peoples stuff would also be shared, trough mutual sharing the quality of life in the community would improve.

>>

 No.12675

This is the stupidest thing since Ow My Balls!

>>

 No.12677

>>12675
Agent provocateur detected :P
But if you think it's stupid,sure, it's your freedom to think so.

>>

 No.12678

>>12642
>>12646
IRC memes. It's beyond me why they are bringing them here.

>>

 No.12680

I am definitely an anarchist but I'm not particularly sure where I fall on the anarchist "spectrum". I'm not sure if it even matters. Most of the time I agree with the anarcho-communists. Occasionally I find post-left and individualist anarchist arguments appealing. On a few topics I've agreed at least somewhat with anti-civilization anarchists. I also find anarcho-transhumanism at least interesting. So I just call myself an anarchist.

>>

 No.12682

>>12674
How would the quality of the community be shared? How to we ensure that the capital is managed, allocated, and used correctly? How is maintained? How do we decide who gets to use what?

>>

 No.12691

>>12682
How would the quality of the community be shared?
Isn't it obvious, by sharing.
How to we ensure that the capital is managed, allocated, and used correctly?
Via voting by direct democracy on local plenums. Also define "used correctly", since it would be a free society, whatever you were given you may use it however you want. The only exception being if it is something you are expected to return eventually, then you should at least have the common decency and intent to return it in working order.
How is maintained?
By experts. There is nothing that forbids you to have specialised experts in a community. If by accident you don't have the required experts there is also nothing that stops you from trading with other communities. I.e. community A produces an excess of metallurgy. However their computers broke and they have very few computer experts to fix them or they have a lack of hardware. Community B on the other hand has lots of hardware and computer experts. They make a trade, the experts from community B fix everything. Community B may or may not need all of those iron products but they can trade those for products and services from other communities. Most of it was natural trade, but it could also work with some kind of currency or especially a stateless cryptocurrency.
How do we decide who gets to use what?
Based on their needs.

>>

 No.12692

>>12691
plenums a.k.a. plenary sessions

>>

 No.12694

>>12691
>How would the quality of the community be shared?
Isn't it obvious, by sharing.

Thanks for the tautology.

>Via voting by direct democracy on local plenums.

This system is no where near fine grained enough to support the ever fluctuating needs and preferences of individuals. This seems so incredibly inefficient.


>However their computers broke and they have very few computer experts to fix them or they have a lack of hardware. Community B on the other hand has lots of hardware and computer experts. They make a trade, the experts from community B fix everything. Community B may or may not need all of those iron products but they can trade those for products and services from other communities. Most of it was natural trade,


So you believe in free trade of goods and services but, not capital? Why does community B have a right to their excess resources? Why should they not just have to 'share' them with community A, just as I have to 'share' my excess resources with the community?

How do you define a community?

>>

 No.12695

>>12677
I'm actually a somewhat rational human being, not working for anyone.

>>

 No.12696

>>12677
Someone disagrees with me? Must be a paid wage slave , could never be that I'm wrong.

>>

 No.12702

>>12046
anarcho-syndicalism seems to be one way of doing that. If syndicate federations become powerful enough they can repel the forces of the state in which they reside and do away with that state.

>>

 No.12703

could there eventually be an anarchist board here on lainchan?

>>

 No.12705

>>12703
may
but not just for politics

>>

 No.12706

File: 1436077080478.jpg (42.25 KB, 540x960, russiaDog.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12703
Plz no.

>>

 No.12709

>>12706
>>12705
I wasnt thinking of a ye old CENSORED where only soykaf drinking happens. I think this place has the environment to have an anarchist board that is for organizing.

>>

 No.12710

>>12696
Oh look another person on the internet that does not understand humor.
>>12703
I approve

>>

 No.12719

>>12694
>So you believe in free trade of goods and services but, not capital? Why does community B have a right to their excess resources? Why should they not just have to 'share' them with community A, just as I have to 'share' my excess resources with the community?

>How do you define a community?


It's called geography.

>This system is no where near fine grained enough to support the ever fluctuating needs and preferences of individuals. This seems so incredibly inefficient.


I don't see the problem. Dissatisfied individuals can always move to another community.

Sure it is a bit hit and miss, But I will compare it to Linux, It's beauty lies in the fact that there are more distros than viruses. If you haven't found one that fits you you just haven't searched long and hard enough.

>>

 No.12738

i've always wondered this, but never really bothered to read about it...


what does your run of the mill anarchist think of firearms?

>>

 No.12743

>>12719
>long and hard
kekekek

>>

 No.12747

>>12719
>It's called geography

Man, I'm going to suggest to say this to you as a lainon and not as a dirty capitalist. You need to get a better understanding of your theory, no one is going to take you seriously if you say something this ignorant. The issue of defining and forming communities is so much more complicated and intricate than geography. You have to take into account the heritage, the values, the shared history, the linguistics, and the experiences of an area's people to define a community. Look at the Balkins and their violent struggles over just that question that defines a community. Look at all the layers of community, familial, friendly, scholastic, economic, local, regional, etc. At what level does this apply? There has been a lot of thought in this field, there has been a lot written, you need to come to the table with a lot more than 'geography.'

Case in point: How would you geographically divide up the Seattle metro area into communities? Is it the whole thing? Is it neighborhood by neighborhood? Do we do it by islands? do we do it economically, put all the techies in one community, dock workers in another? Is Tacoma in the community? Is Vancouver? How would your system adjust to account for rapid population or economic shifts?

>>

 No.12750

>>12719
>I don't see the problem. Dissatisfied individuals can always move to another community.

haha, the old love it or leave it approach. So you're saying if I can't get access to bike parts because my community doesn't value it I should move?

>Sure it is a bit hit and miss, But I will compare it to Linux,


Dude, the world isn't Wikipedia and Linux, there are certain problems that can and are solved by tech, but there are plenty that won't and never will be.

You can't fork a farm and start growing kale instead of lettuce.

>>

 No.12761

>>12031
>Anarcho Socialism

Explain...

>>

 No.12763

>>12761
anarchism is itself a type of socialism, I think that the only reason the word "anarcho-socialism" was uttered was to differentiate this anarchism from the lawless chaos that capitalists like to call "anarchism".

>>

 No.12764

>>12738
Guns are important for removing hierarchy, and even after hierarchy is removed guns can help in keeping things stable. They are a must.

>>

 No.12784

File: 1436222364888.jpg (108.55 KB, 1366x768, Cat holy wars.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12702
Noam Chomsky who I think is a syndicalist himself, has often pointed out that labour history in America is extremely violent. What you're talking about is called "dual power" where your organizations struggle to simultaneously improve work and general life conditions under the current structure while actively trying to overthrow those structures. In case your revolution doesn't succeed you may improve life for people in the meantime. Expect a lot of resistance meanwhile and don't think for a second that it will be peaceful.

>>12764
Yeah even if you didn't want one, someone else would and that gives them power over you and your loved ones. Pic not really related, or is it?

>>

 No.12803

Nice to find comrades around here and find nice discussion.

Would you guys say there's affinity between cyberpunk and anarchism in general? What about anarcho-transhumanism, and mutualism (anti-capitalist markets)? How do you think technology would develop in a communist or syndicalist society?

>>12763
Since socialism isn't inherently stateless (unlike communism), it also exists to differentiate it from State Socialism.

>>12738
As different anarchist branches revolve mostly on economic issues, anarchists have a wide range of opinions about social issues, but if you're talking about gun control, then I think it's safe to say most, if not all, anarchists are against gun control. For two reasons: First, just like most enforced laws, it tends to be useless in practice, and it might even have the opposite effect. It's meant to stop people killing each other, but consider that people crazy enough to kill someone would find a way to get their guns anyway, while mentally healthy people wouldn't have the means to defend themselves from the crazy ones. Or not just crazy but also all of those who are above the law (ie rich/government). Second, is what >>12764 said.
That said, that's because I see guns as a tool for self-defense, so I don't think we can be lumped together with those redneck conservatives that go around displaying their guns. So it all depends on the context. I'm not from the US so I wouldn't know.

>>

 No.12828

>>12803
>affinity between cyberpunk and anarchism in general
I would say so, I'm not sure about any specific branches of anarchism however - certainly anarcho-transhumanism, and to some extent the mutualism, but all the cyberpunk I read about has capitalism in there (even if it isn't a good thing..).

>how do you think technology would develop in a communist or syndicalist society?

it would probably start as DIY, one guy has a crazy idea type innovation. There's no central organization to where technology should go in general, maybe a lot of research organizations though, maybe a leaderless scientific community.

>>

 No.12829

>>12828
>leaderless scientific community.
Isn't that the case already?

>>

 No.12850

>>12829
In a way. But the government and corps have a stranglehold on academia; from what I've seen it's not easy to do science for a living while having nothing to do with the feds.

>>

 No.12878

>>12850
Okay, yeah, that's fair.

>>

 No.12883

How is a murder handled in anarchy?

>>

 No.12885

>>12883
It's decision of the community, but there isn't a big jail for everyone.

I personally think that things such as bad or good don't exist, and that if you killed someone it's not because you're "bad", you just have mental problems or at least momentarily did, and should be treated as such with a psychologist and psychiatrist.

>>

 No.12898

>>12885
so how does that handle societal problems with racism, sexism etc? It seems to me society is more willing to let people get away with crimes committed against minorities

>>

 No.12905

File: 1436464353390.jpg (149.94 KB, 496x700, girlthings.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12885
This whole thread just reminds me of this.

Don't worry NEETs we don't work for your approval.

>>

 No.12912

>>12898
a big part of revolution is transitioning in culture.

>>

 No.12913

I'm not really a socialist but I have to say Bakunin was better than Marx

>>

 No.12920

>>12885
Who collects evidence against them? Who arrests them? Who decides whether that evidence is valid? Who convicts them? Who enforces their sentence, and how?

I imagine anarchy running essentially like the average democratic or communist trial, but with more mob rule because it's an emotional event and nobody has the actual authority to enforce any of these guidelines.

>>

 No.12949

>>12920
Authority of the expert I guess.

>>

 No.12950

>>12747
The thing is, there is no theory. Unlike the the average anarcho capitalist, who are pretty uniform in their theories on anarcho capitalism, I will with confidence say that every anarcho socialist has his own version of anarcho socialism and we only agree on general directions.

Also why couldn't I fork a farm? Sure it might not succeed but damn it if I can not make it as an experiment, i.e. try to farm Bananas in Scandinavia, of course at the beginning it would be all set up as very careful and small scale(i.e. 10 trees).

>>

 No.12952

File: 1436620513945.gif (1.76 MB, 320x180, fthepolice.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>12905
Implying that arbitrarily defined governmental types of organisation a.k.a. nations and countries are more important than individuals.

Also another dank meme.

>>

 No.12953

>>12750
Go to a plenum and tell them you need those things. They will put it on a list and then either try to produce it or trade for it.

>>

 No.12954

>>12747
You are assuming that someone should intentionally split the area of Seattle into so called communities and that those communities should be uniform in size. The problem with that is that that would require some kind of union of communities which would form a hierarchy over them which is exactly what anarcho socialism is not about. Anarcho socialism wants a flat hierarchy.

How I see it is that the communities should be formed trough a natural,random and evolutive process. Unlike existing countries of course they must have direct democracy, a hierarchy that is as close to flat as possible. Also they should not be bigger than European micro-states i.e Lichtensten, San marino, Monaco. For the last one, so far the only mechanism I can think of keeping them from overgrowing is that process I mentioned earlier. I.e. it becomes too huge to function properly, or it becomes evil and starts agravating neighbors then it either split's up naturally or split's up due to outside forces or other problems.
Sure I don't have a diploma in philosophy or I haven't had days or months of thought into it so all of my theories can be improved in their details.

Yeah, my problem and my strength is that I am not a tactical person, I am a strategic person.

>>

 No.12955

>>12949
Even if you had (presumably) an abundance of evidence against a murderer and two 'experts' to argue the case for and against the murderer, you would still need a mutually agreed-upon system to reach a verdict about that evidence, someone to make rules and conditions for what is considered a 'crime', etc. Then you need to worry about crime scene tampering, corruption within this system, and other nasty things that Anarchy is supposed to get rid of.

>>

 No.12959

>>12955
That seems like a challenge, but not one that can not be beaten with a bit of philosophical thought.

>>

 No.12960

Guys, you can't get to anarchism without social democracy.

>>

 No.12961

Anarchists generally don't like to talk about "blueprints" for an anarchist society because most of it is just guessing anyway.
But here's some stuff about crime:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html#seci58

>>

 No.12963

>>12960
Neo-Marx pls go
SocDem only ever leads to itself: a soft oligarchy.
Very much like a dictatorship of the proletariat leads only to a totalitarian state.

The only form of working anarchy is systemic, like early internet, chan culture or open sauce.

>>

 No.12964

>>12963
Anarchy needs a cultural change to work, and that cultural change can't be brought by a revolution, but it can be taught through a well-done pro-anarchy social democracy.

>>

 No.12966

>>12953
> I can't get bike parts because my community won't provide them

Ask the community for them

>>

 No.12967

>>12950
You are an idiot.

You can fork Linux because all you need is a bit of hard drive space. You can't fork a farm because you need land, tools, machinery, buildings, seeds, etc...

You have to build another farm from the ground up with new materials.

I'll spell this out more for you...

Your original argument was that disagreements over resources could be resolved through a plethora of choices (that's called a market btw). This works in a system like Linux, because there is no capital, there are no resources, there is only labor. You can freely and easily go your own way without any need to divide resources.

If you disagree with the direction that your collective farm is going in you and the collective reaches a consensus that doesn't resolve your disagreement you can't fork the farm. You'd have to divide up the resources of the farm.

When you fork a software project, you're only moving labor, if you want to fork a farm you have to deal with the tangible, physical resources of the farm.

While I agree that the systems that FOSS uses in development are nonhiearchical, almost anarchic, and do work, this is because the settings and constraints are completely different.

>>

 No.12968

File: 1436670254320.jpg (12.33 KB, 250x250, 1396145151277.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12954
>Yeah, my problem and my strength is that I am not a tactical person, I am a strategic person.

Oh, you're an 'ideas guy,' got it

>>

 No.12973

>>12964
You respond, yet you don't hear my words.
Others have treaded that path before.
Transitionnal systems of government never are.

Political systems operate on a darwinian basis.

The only way to stem political change is to make your system beat all the others by being the optimal for the conditions of the time.

Every political system that has been made obsolete has been made so by a systemic change, be it the printing press or the advent of industry.

My guess would be that for anarchy to be attained, you need a post scarcity society where everything is attended to by robots and power is more symbolic than anything else.

Much like our non physical realms are these days.

>>

 No.12974

>>12973
I see, I get your point but,
>Others have treaded that path before.
What others are you refering to? You might be getting my point wrong, or I might be missing some info.
>My guess would be that for anarchy to be attained, you need a post scarcity society
Well, that doesn't stop us from making a transitional system for when we're ready.

>>

 No.12977

>>12968
What I am saying is that I am better at thinking about the general picture, logistics and long term planning than details, implementation and short term planning.

Or rather thinking like that is more more natural for me. I know many people whom I consider natural tacticians. But I think there are less than 0.1% people that are naturally talented for both.

Exceptions exist but from my experience women and left handers tend to be more tactical thinkers

>>

 No.12997

>>12031
How on earth are anarchism and socialism meaningfully related in any sense of either buzzword?

The AnCap thread, which is itself also a disaster, at least has a meaningful relationship between anti-statism and corporate freedom.

And this goes without saying that, even if it were possible to justify anarchism (which I do not believe it is, I think that Nozick's refutation in Anarchy State and Utopia pretty much sums it up), what sort of magic are you going to concoct to make people voluntarily work together and resolve economic disputes in an organized way without a governing entity?

We cannot ignore the scarcity of resources and its relationship to human conflict. Therefore, we cannot ignore that the application of force (even if by nature humans are cooperative and it is NOT the de facto means of conflict resolution) will reduce any state of anarchy to a state of nature, i.e. Survival of the Fittest.

>>

 No.12998

>>12997
How are they not?
Anarcho capitalism is essentially slavery to corporations.

People would be self governed, that is the whole point.

Also just how scarce are the resources? The universe is endless.
Perhaps we should concentrate on colonising the stars,
Or we should concentrate on inventing food replicators which could create food and water from ions...

>>

 No.12999

>>12998
>How are they not?
Please carefully reread the above. Your post fails to adequately respond, and makes wild and radical claims.

>Anarcho capitalism is essentially slavery to corporations

Yes, that is well put.

>People would be self governed, that is the whole point.

Socialism (by which I assume you mean Marxism, this thread has yet to make that clear) and self-government are mutually exclusive. Marxism seeks to abolish class struggle; there are still factors, forces, influences which need to be controlled in order to maintain this state of equality. How are they maintained? They will still require a governing entity; otherwise, I repeat, those who apply force will possess power over others, which only force can take back.

Freedom is not only freedom TO, it includes freedom FROM: i.e., freedom from being MURDERED IN MY SLEEP. How do human communities ensure this freedom? Through the careful and controlled application of force by a governing body (which, of course, presents many of its own problems, but actually does manage to solve a few and ensure certain freedoms).

"Self government" does ensure unlimited Freedom TO, but it does nothing to ensure Freedom FROM, and saying "well that's your responsibility" is bullsoykaf, because that's just more survival of the fittest Darwinist crap; natural doesn't mean right, all people have at least a baseline moral value.

>Also just how scarce are the resources? The universe is endless.

Marx's entire theory of human history is postulated on the premise that communities arise out of economic necessity. Sure, the planet Earth does currently possess enough resources to feed everybody. But do the resources just magically find their way to hungry people? Of course not; there are those who control them, and those who do not. State entities mitigate and restrain the power of those who control to oppress those who do not: anarchy, in all its forms, by eliminating the state body, only exacerbates the power of those who control resources to oppress those who do not.

>Perhaps we should concentrate on colonising the stars

Good luck getting people to "focus"! Who builds these spaceships? Corporations? Worker-conglomerates? A bunch of dudes in your backyard? These will require resources, which you must appropriate either from the Earth, which requires massive cooperation, or from those who already have them, which requires either an economic structure (guaranteed by a governing entity to NOT devolve into oppression and violence) or magical non-aggression by all parties.

>Or we should concentrate on inventing food replicators which could create food and water from ions

Again, how do we do this "concentration" thing? Is that just something people do together? Create food replication machines? It is one thing to say that it is morally valuable to work on a food replication machine for the good of others: but man does not survive on moral value alone.

>>

 No.13000

>>12997
Anarchism is a socialist school of though, it always was. I don't really see what's your problem with it.

Socialism here obviously refers to the collective ownership of the means of production, not the intermediate state before full communism in Marxist thought.

>>

 No.13001

File: 1436727107036.jpg (69.68 KB, 350x430, female_partisan.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12999
>Socialism (by which I assume you mean Marxism, this thread has yet to make that clear)
I don't know where you got this misconception, but nobody on the Earth thinks socialism is the same thing as Marxism.

>[Marxism] and self-government are mutually exclusive.

How? There are many Marxists philosophies to prove this is not true, like council communism or many other forms of left communism.

> They will still require a governing entity

Yeah, self-governing entities. Anarchists are not against order, they are against outside governing forced on them (which is a form of hierarchy). There's nothing wrong with stopping people from limiting others' freedoms.

Also, you don't get to decide what's fit and what's not. Darwinism does not necessarily means free for all, cooperation and mutual aid are very successful strategies.

Please educate yourself on matters of politics before you start assuming bullsoykaf.

>>

 No.13003

>>12959
Easier said than done.

>>

 No.13005

>>13000
In the words of Bakunin,
>Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Capitalism is Capitalism; Socialism is Socialism; Anarchism is Anarchism. They are distinct entities. Sometimes they work the same, other times they don't.

That's how I view it at least.

>>

 No.13006

>>13005
They are not distinct, anarchism is a "version" of socialism, like communism or utopian socialism.

>>

 No.13010

File: 1436753553290.jpg (12.17 KB, 242x208, download.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>12977
>FEMALES and left handers are more 'tactical'

>>

 No.13012

Bump, I'm preparing a long reply.

>>

 No.13016

>>13006
It is also, in the same sense, a 'version' of laissez-faire capitalism. Usually the difference between so-called anarcho-capitalists and so-called social anarchists is their treatment of property, which ultimately comes down to semantics. The behavior and beliefs of the people have to be the same either way.

>>

 No.13018

>>13016
you're forgetting the history, literature, popularity, and demographics.

>>

 No.13019

>>13016
No, this is so wrong I don't even know where to start. I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or just too post-modernist.

>>

 No.13021

>>13010
I am generalising and I am not even saying they are good at being tactical.

But I am saying that they tend to fuss more about details and implementation. (i.e. you buy a woman a nice coat but she starts to yell how the buttons do not match her eye colour).

>>

 No.13022

>>13010
I'll bite. What's with insisting on people say FEMALES instead of women?

>>

 No.13023

People, please don't misinterpret that Marx is a key figure in anarcho socialism. No, Marx is just one of Bakhunin's influences. Bakhuni is by many considered to be the founding father of anarcho-socialism.

Also:
Socialism-economical ideology
Anarchism-cultural ideology
Put the two together and, yes you have Anarcho-socialism.
And not only that, Anarcho-socialism is a much older ideology than Anarcho-capitalism.

>>13022
It's just a synonym I like to use interchangeably. Honestly a pure dice roll depending on my whim on whether I will call them women or females.

>>

 No.13025

>>13023
>It's just a synonym I like to use interchangeably. Honestly a pure dice roll depending on my whim on whether I will call them women or females.
Yeah, I get that. Women and females are mostly synonymous. I'm just wondering why you not only misquoted him, but made wrote that one particular word in all-caps.

>>

 No.13030


>>13025
Aha, actually I am:
>>12977

>>

 No.13044

>>13006
Are you seriously saying that Max Stirner was a socialist? Or are you implying he wasn't an anarchist?

>>

 No.13047

>>13044
Stirner influenced the modern and post-modern left and post-left across the board, you sure as fuarrrk can't say he was a capitalist

>>

 No.13050

File: 1436835652246.png (64.73 KB, 617x666, 1340354012610.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>13047
No crap, but you also can't say he was a socialist, since he explicitly soykaf on socialism on multiple occasions. Hence the whole "anarchism is not necessarily socialism" thing. Anti-capitalism and socialism aren't the same thing.

>>

 No.13054

>>13050
>anarchism is not necessarily socialism
When is anarchism socialism?

>>

 No.13058

>>13047
I would classify most workerist forms of anarchism as socialist.

>>

 No.13060

>>13054
anarchism has traditionally been a socialist movement.

>>

 No.13063

>>13060
now you're just repeating yourself

>>

 No.13064

>>13044
Yes, he was a socialist.

>>13050
State socialism, mostly. Individualist anarchism is still socialist.

>>

 No.13065

(1)

This thread is weak and full of people who misunderstand Anarchism to be the absence of order and not just the absence of imposed authority, also my comrades in this thread need to do a little more reading into Anarchist theory, practise and how it was done in the past; we shouldn't be arrogant enough to claim we know exactly how everything will turn out but having the knowledge is beneficial (also a lot of earlier discussions by some of the well respected Anarchists are relevant to this day, much more than when they were around (e.g. The Bakunin/Marx events, the Italian Anarchists with their more individualistic nature, the "individualist"/collectivist interactions in Spain ~1930s)).

Please be aware of your status quo bias, the default is not Capitalism just because that's how things are organized right now so any issues you have with Anarchism are not reasons to support Capitalism, the burden of proof lies with whomever is making the claim. This is going to be a long post so I will break it up into sections.

Definitions I'm using:
The state: a group of people who successfully claim the only legitimate use of force over given territory.
Anarchism: the belief that the burden of proof lies with authority; that it is not self-justifying and unnecessary authority is to be removed and if necessary replaced.
Socialism: the workers owning the means of production.
Communism: a stateless, classless, socialist society where things are distributed from ability to need.
Private property: When people use violence to prevent others from accessing stuff they absolutely need (specifically the means of production).
Personal property: Stuff you personally use like your car, toothbrush and games console.
Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production which is used to extract surplus from the working class through wage labour.

>>

 No.13066

(2)

Why Capitalism is soykaf and why you can go fuarrrk yourself for supporting it (for dummies™):
This section deals with why Capitalism isn't human nature, how it began (enclosure) and how it's basically slavery (forced labour). In feudal societies the land was collectively owned by the people who used it and to the early Capitalists this was not a good thing so they used the state to pass laws against communal property and violently forced the proletariat off their land, enforcing private property. This in effect created a landless working class who were given the choice (please note that having a choice doesn't imply you have freedom) between either working in despicable conditions in the newly created factories or to starve to death (and given the conditions they were now working and living in there wasn't much difference), the Capitalist class were victorious. The reasoning behind me claiming that Capitalism is slavery is this: in order to live you need food and shelter, in the Capitalist mode of production you are forced to pay taxes in order to have a house and you cannot access food without money, you can't get money without trading the products of your labour, you can't produce these commodities without having access to the means of production, you can't access the means of production because Capitalists enforce their beliefs of private property on you using the state; you have to play their game or they will use violence against you ("The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime" - Stirner). You either work for a wage or starve, that is no more of a free choice than the choice somebody has of giving up their possessions or being killed when they're being mugged, tax is no different from the protection money the Mafia demands from it's victims.

>>

 No.13067

(3)

There is a reason why Capitalists do this, it's because they want to make more money than they put in: c-c (c=commodity. This is barter), c-m-c (m=money. This is trade using money, it's what you do when you're working to buy food), m-c-m+ (m+=more money. This is what the Capitalists do, they invest money to buy machines which are used by the working class to produce commodities which are then sold, the Capitalist gains more money through this process than they invest). This extra value is stolen from the working class through wage labour, the worker produces commodities which the Capitalist then sells, using that money to give the worker back enough of the value that the worker has created to live and come to work the next day (it's not uncommon for them to get less and have to claim from the government to survive these days), this is not the full value of the commodities they've produced but their wage which is paid according to how long they work, not how much they produce, the exploitation is when they have to produce more than the value of their wage, filling the Capitalists pockets with money so they can get rich from other people's hard work. None of this would happen if they didn't use violence to claim sole ownership over the means of production. There is a conflict between the working class and the Capitalists; the workers are interested in procuring things like food, shelter etc. and want to work less for more (use value) (ultimately the full value of their labour) while the Capitalists are interested in the value they can get from exchange, they can do this by extending the working hours and paying the workers a lower wage.

>>

 No.13068

(4)

There are many contradictions inherent to the Capitalist mode of production such as enough food to feed the world yet mass starvation, enough medical technology yet in some places without free health services people die from lack of medical attention, we have enough homes yet sickening amounts of homeless people and ultimately the whole mode of production, interested only in exchange value at the expense of actual human needs destroys the very environment which sustains our life; a system that kills us is not a viable one. Today we have tons of meaningless bullsoykaf jobs that waste human potential such as call centres, fast food (you can make your own sandwich), lawyers, landlords, bankers etc.. We have a great need for work, yet there are hordes of unemployed people, if we actually had a mode of production that was focused on meeting actual human needs we could share the work hours. The point I'm trying to make in this paragraph is that Capitalism only cares for Capitalism, it's only purpose is to maintain itself and expand like some heavy ice.

>>

 No.13069

(5)

How Anarchists organize; what an Anarchist society could look like:
There are many schools of Anarchism but they all focus on one thing which is seeking out forms of authority, questioning them and if they are found tThere is a reason why Capitalists do this, it's because they want to make more money than they put in: c-c (c=commodity. This is barter), c-m-c (m=money. This is trade using money, it's what you do when you're working to buy food), m-c-m+ (m+=more money. This is what the Capitalists do, they invest money to buy machines which are used by the working class to produce commodities which are then sold, the Capitalist gains more money through this process than they invest). This extra value is stolen from the working class through wage labour, the worker produces commodities which the Capitalist then sells, using that money to give the worker back enough of the value that the worker has created to live and come to work the next day (it's not uncommon for them to get less and have to claim from the government to survive these days), this is not the full value of the commodities they've produced but their wage which is paid according to how long they work, not how much they produce, the exploitation is when they have to produce more than the value of their wage, filling the Capitalists pockets with money so they can get rich from other people's hard work. None of this would happen if they didn't use violence to claim sole ownership over the means of production. There is a conflict between the working class and the Capitalists; the workers are interested in procuring things like food, shelter etc. and want to work less for more (use value) (ultimately the full value of their labour) while the Capitalists are interested in the value they can get from exchange, they can do this by extending the working hours and paying the workers a lower wage.

>>

 No.13070

(6)

Other Anarchist schools of thought include Collectivists and they organize like the Anarcho-Communists but have labour vouchers, the Mutualists who want an anti-Capitalist free market. There are also Capitalists who claim to be Anarchists, they are not Anarchists. This has nothing to do with disliking them, they quite literally go against everything that is Anarchist and seem to think that because they wish for the state to be demolished that means that they're Anarchists; Anarchism is not just the lack of a state, the anti-state Capitalists ignore the authoritarian social relationships in the workplace and those that occur due to private property, they are not questioning and dismantling authority.o be illegitimate (i.e. forced on the individual) destroying them and organizing in a manner that ensures the individual can freely be themselves. This is the modus operandi of the Anarchists: do whatever you want as long as you're not forcefully imposing your will on others. I personally believe that the only way we can realistically achieve this is by organizing (con)federations around decentralized planned economies (a gift economy) with the organizations only existing when they have a concrete purpose, with recallable delegates who only have the power to echo the decisions made from consensus (consent) by people organizing based on affinity such as in workplaces and the "justice system" being replaced by restorative justice. These are my personal views, I cannot speak on behalf of all of the Anarchists. Before asking how something would work in an Anarchist society ask yourself this: how does it work now, would there be any reason to change it and if so, how and why? Examples of how Anarchism functioned in the past include Catalonia during the civil war, The Ukrainian Free Territory and many types of Anarchist organization can be found in tribes throughout history such as the Mbuti people.

>>

 No.13071

>>13069
I fugged up and accidentally pasted over the paragraph.

>>

 No.13074

File: 1436903494863.jpg (57.84 KB, 509x720, iwwdictator.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb


>>

 No.13075

>>13074
Corporatism is just fascism without the Nazi memorabilia, yes.

>>

 No.13084

File: 1436911867764.jpg (416.02 KB, 1286x1078, 136231953774.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>13064
>Yes, he was a socialist.
No, he wasn't.

>State socialism, mostly. Individualist anarchism is still socialist.

Ugh this is what happens when people take the AFAQ seriously. No, Stirner did not make a distinction between "socialism" and "state socialism". Society itself was something he considered a spook, why the fuarrrk would he want anything run by it? I can find you dozens of quotes where he pretty fuarrrking explicitly states socialism is bad. Here's one:
>All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods.
Find me ONE fuarrrking time where he makes a distinction between "socialism" and "state socialism" as something to be reviled. Just because YOU'RE a bullheaded soykaf who can't stand to think of any kind of anarchism outside of your leftist weltanschauung doesn't mean he was.

Also: note that I'm not denying all forms of anarchism are anti-capitalist. This is true. But again, you don't get to co-opt all forms of anti-capitalism under the term "socialism," no matter how many warm fuzzies it might give you.

>>

 No.13099

>>13074
In all honesty emailing them will put you on so many terrorist watchlists.

>>

 No.13103

>>13099
Meh, I doubt it. Maybe if the IWW were as powerful as they were 50+ years ago, but not today. Honestly, I bet being involved with the EFF, ACLU, or Amnesty Intl. is more likely to get you on a list than being involved with the IWW these days. They're simply not relevant enough to anything for anyone to care. They used to organize soykaf like prison breaks and whatnot. These days, wtf have they done? Organized a couple boycotts? Maybe a picket line or two?

>>

 No.13112

>>13025
I'm >>13010, I was making fun of him.

But please be socratic and nit pick word, that will totally make the world a better place. I bet you're one of those fuarrrks who gets more upset about the new avengers movie than the piece meal destruction of Women's reproductive rights in red states. Go culture war some where else.

>>

 No.13113

File: 1437006773309.png (273.13 KB, 392x483, 27th century prince of wal….png) ImgOps iqdb

>>12031
>implying anarcho-socialism is a thing

>>

 No.13118

>>13113
>>13113
Can you put a little more work into the post and explain why you think it isn't a thing? Schway image though

>>

 No.13120

>>13067
I don't agree with your analysis of Capitalism. The purpose of money is the idea of credit: I have three bushels of wheat, and I want to trade them for fish. Well, what if the fisherman doesn't want or need wheat today? That's a bit of an adverse situation for us. Credit is more liquid. It allows me to trade coins, representative of the value of my wheat, to the fisherman, who may or may not want wheat at all; ultimately it doesn't matter, because he can spend those coins on something he does want, and eventually someone will buy my wheat and I'll make that credit back. Credit adds liquidity to bargaining, which has value for obvious reasons and is going to stay with humanity much in the same sense that the wheel or written language will, whether we like it or not, whether we are in a state or not.

So basically the idea is that at some point work was done in exchange for that money. By conducting a trade with the fisherman, I'm metaphorically catching the fish: I'm transforming work I did in another art or acquired by some other means into money, which I then transformed into the fish. I, like the workers who will man the fishing craft, am performing work, even if it looks like I'm not. You just don't see me working when I write the check. Divorcing the concepts of money and commodity is totally unacceptable. They are 100% interconnected from the start, and represent one another.

In effect, following the money trails of a society and finding these hyper-concentrated nodes of money within the economy is an extremely intricate and arguably very accurate way to track influence and significance. All of this metaphorical work and struggling is aggregating into just a few people. How these people are able to "be worth" millions or billions of dollars speaks volumes for how people in our society view them and how much we believe we need to rely on them for our society to function as it does.

CEOs and every member of the board of directors of a corporation are hired or elected, they are almost never despots. Their knowledge and merits are things an organization needs - or believes it needs - to function. The greed starts when, and only when, these CEOs ask for more money than they could ever spend. They're only doing what is allowed to them, yet what they are allowed is, as we often find out, too much.

As in every popular political theory, if everyone plays by the rules, is a "good" citizen according to the standards of that philosophy, essentially lives in a vacuum - the society will function. On the other hand, it is when people choose not to follow the rules and regulations, usually for selfish reasons, that a society crumbles.

We cannot rely on governments to make the rules for us that will protect us from the violators of those rules, the greedy, or the selfish. To believe that any government can protect us from those people bent on harming others, misled or intentionally, legally or illegally, is naivety; it is blindness. The truth is the strength of Anarchy.

>>

 No.13124

I thought red/black was supposed to be anarcho communism not anarcho socialism?

What's the cat for?

>>

 No.13125

>>13124
Black and red It definitely is for anarcho socialism. I am not sure for the others, they might just have the same colours.

http://web.archive.org/web/19970815195121/http://www.eskimo.com/~jonkonnu/cat&shoe.html

" One story we have heard relates how, early in the history of the IWW, a group of logger Wobblies had initiated a strike at the camp where they worked. The strike was not working out & strike-breaking thugs had already put a number of Wobs in the hospital. At this time, a straggly-ass & starving black cat wandered into the camp & was fed by the despondent workers. As the days went by & the cat regained its health, the strike took a turn for the better. Eventually the Wobs won some of their battles & decided to adopt the cat as their official mascot. There's no documentation for this at all (as far as we could find) but it's a good story.

The wooden shoe is also a symbol of sabotage. In fact, this kind of wooden shoe or clog was originally called a sabot, from which we get the term "sabotage" itself. Its symbolic meaning arose from the fact that workers in the earliest factories in Northern Europe would take off their sabots & shove them into the gears of the machines, wreaking havoc & causing the machines to malfunction & shut down. Yahoo!"

>>

 No.13126

File: 1437049266495.jpg (187.09 KB, 600x927, 0bb36_gen_strike_english_h….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>13124
There's no anarcho-socialism, all anarchists are socialists. Red-black is supposed to be anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism but sometimes others use it too.

The cat is a wildcat, representing wildcat strikes (strikes without permission), sabotage and other forms of direct action.

>>

 No.13133

>>13126
this. as mentioned in this thread, the term anarcho-socialism is used only because fascists and capitalists adopted the title "anarcho" recently for some reason.

>>

 No.13134

>>13118
capitalist "anarchism" teaches anarchism as a thing of absolute lawlessness and a thing of hierarchy by capitalists. The use the medias definition of anarchy as disorder with hierarchy by gangs or what have you, rather than the actual definition which is simply "no hierarchy" without any indication of whether there should or shoudlnt be order, although anarchists across the board except for maybe ayncraps and primitivists are against order.

>>

 No.13139

>>13120
You didn't read my post, did you? Looking at the free market is all fine and dandy but Capitalism isn't just the free market, it's also private property and wage labour. Look at the workplace, because that's where the problems and capital accumulation start. I don't have that many problems with the free market but we're talking about a mode of production, not of exchange.

>So basically the idea is that at some point work was done in exchange for that money

I agree, but who labours in the factories to create the commodities, is it the worker or the Capitalist? You may be equal in the market but you're not in the workplace.

In your example (if I understood it correctly) you made the claim that the people who earn vast amounts of money like managers of companies make that much because people deem them to be useful and they elected them into that position. The first problem I have with this is that they're deemed useful and the assumption that the most useful people are rewarded the most in this society, if you actually look at how things operate in this society it simply isn't true and I believe that it's the exact opposite. The method I'm using to find the most useful occupations is to imagine society without these people and if I can see everything operating just fine then I assume that they're not very useful. For example imagine what society would look like without nurses, carers, teachers, firemen, janitors, mechanics; everything would collapse because these people are immeasurably valuable yet they're the lowest paid and are constantly facing cuts (EU austerity). Now do the same for CEOs, football players (soccer to Americans), call centre workers etc., society would be just fine if these people disappeared yet the former two are incredibly high paid. My next issue is the claim that they were elected, please remind me of the time we all sat down as a society and every single one of us decided that we should have private property, wage labour and CEOs. They are despots by their mere existence, they extract surplus from the working class, something they can only do with the threat of violence and starvation.

You don't seem to understand that when things are produced in a Capitalist society they are produced for their exchange-value, not for their use-value. The people who do things like the tar sands, fracking and oil, literally making the environment unsuitable for human life are not doing it because it's useful for society, they're doing it for the exchange-value.

>>

 No.13140

>>13125
>Black and red It definitely is for anarcho socialism.
Well, it was historically used by anarcho-syndicalists, then was also picked up by communist anarchists, and eventually became a sort of catchall-banner for leftist anarchists.

>>13126
>There's no anarcho-socialism
Yeah, I've never really heard the term before.

>all anarchists are socialists

Except that's wrong. Or did you miss our nice little discussion about Stirner?

>>

 No.13142

>>13084
When he wrote his book socialism was used almost exclusively to refer to what we call today state socialism.

>>

 No.13145

>>13139
Okay so first off I read not only that post but all five of your long-ass posts.

Secondly, if it were so easy to function without paying these big wigs, why don't businesses cut down their executive department and save literally billions over the years? I mean, CEOs die or leave a company or are fired all the time. It wouldn't be that hard to just... You know, cut the position.

Exchange value matches use value in capitalism. You just have to take supply and demand into the equation. For us, water and air are the most useful things on the planet, but I don't have to pay $30 million for a single sip of water because there's plenty to go around and it's everywhere. Now imagine that there was only one glass of water in the world. What would the bidding start at? How far would it go?

It's not really a matter of, "CEOs are better than the janitors", it's a matter of, "We need our CEO because he has something we need that nobody else has."

>>

 No.13147

>>13140
nah all anarchists are socialist. There is no way to have freedom from hierarchy without having the means of production belong to workers. Only "anarchists" are not socialist, as in the authoritarians that call themselves anarchists.

>>

 No.13148

>>13147
*sigh* alright, let's go over this again. Are you therefore saying Max Stirner wasn't an anarchist, or are you saying he was a socialist?

>>

 No.13149

>>13148
>my ebin meme guy that existed before anarchy was an official thing but is now called an anarchist is proof that ayncrapitalism is anarchism checkmate atheists Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>

 No.13150

>>13149
>ayncrapitalism
... I'm guessing you have no idea who Stirner actually is. He was an ardent anti-capitalist.

In any case, can I then assume that your implication is that Egoist anarchism is not a type of anarchism?

>>

 No.13154

>>13150
no no I know who he is, in fact I read the ego and its own. I was just saying that ayncraps use max to dismiss that anarchism is a socialist thing. I fail to see how egoist anarchism is not socialism. Nothing about anarchism of any sort would promote hierarchy, and a boss having a worker is a hierarchy.

>>

 No.13155

>>13154
Again, read my post here:
>>13084
Egoism is definitely anti-cap, but that doesn't mean it's socialist. Stirner felt society was a spook, so he certainly wouldn't want anything run by it, so there goes that definition of socialism. And most contemporary anarchists of the post-left variety, including egoists, oppose the entire idea of work, making "worker control" explicitly impossible, so it doesn't fit into that definition either. And again, there's the whole bit of Stirner railing against socialism of all forms over and over again, including in The Ego and its Own, which makes me wonder how you missed that.

>>

 No.13160

> ayncraps
I'll admit I laughed when I read this but Rand claimed that anyone claiming to merge her ideas with anarchism were missing the point.

> For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

For the record no I'm not a fan of hers, I think she was batsoykaf personally. Just wanted to put that out there.

>>

 No.13161

>>13160
PS: these language enhancers? were never funny.

>>

 No.13162

>>13161
did you use the reverse wordfilter

>>

 No.13164

Anarchy isn't so great. The world started out in anarchy and look where it got us.

>>

 No.13166

>>13164
The world started out with blind barbarism that I guess you could call anarchy but, you have no proof that any other way or life would have resulted in anything better. You could even argue that since all tribes had hierarchies it was not true Anarchy. Now in the day of the internet we have a huge tool with which to organize and plenty of life improving technologies and people who know how to use them. What most Anarchists want is willing order rather than imposed order and so too do the vast majority people however, they believe that their fellow man is a barbarian, which is false, we have to start realising that our populace is more highly educated than it has been for all of history, that people can see the effect their actions have on everyone and to realise that the sate and the corporations which control it, are the real barbarians wielding power over us with drones, nukes and huge surveillance networks that are merely stand-ins for the clubs and swords of yesteryear.

>>

 No.13167

>>13166
Who mediates over disagreements on language in a contract between two parties?

>>

 No.13169

>>13167
No state = No legal system. Such contracts would have no weight.

>>

 No.13172

>>13167
Stuff like that will probably be handled by worker federations, since deals would be economically beneficial and encourage predictable resource exchange. But there will likely be no service like a legal system to enforce deals, they will merely be agreements done for the better good.

>>

 No.13179

>>13145
>if it were so easy to function without paying these big wigs, why don't businesses cut down their executive department and save literally billions over the years?
Businesses aren't people, the CEOs run the business so why would they cut their own position?

>Exchange value matches use value in capitalism. You just have to take supply and demand into the equation

Commodities in the Capitalist mode of production have both a use-value and an exchange-value but they're not the same. Capitalists don't care about meeting people's needs, they only care about how much profit they can get, they care about exchange-value.

>For us, water and air are the most useful things on the planet, but I don't have to pay $30 million for a single sip of water because there's plenty to go around and it's everywhere.

The reason you don't have to pay for it isn't because it's plentiful, it's because there is no practical way of restricting access to it and then charging for it. There's food everywhere, it's plentiful but there are starving people. This is because you can restrict access to food (private property).

>Now imagine that there was only one glass of water in the world. What would the bidding start at? How far would it go?

That's impossible, Capitalism wouldn't survive if there was only one glass of water, people would fight for it.

>"We need our CEO because he has something we need that nobody else has."

You're delusional. The thing the CEO has that nobody else does is a claim to private ownership over the means of production backed up by the violence of the state.

You claim to have read my posts but I don't think that you've actually thought about what I've posted. Capitalism puts people in a position where they're forced into a mode of production that exploits them pushing them to work unnecessary long hours doing meaningless soul-destroying jobs, they're denied access to the very things they need to survive by use of violence killing vast amounts of people and putting them into immeasurable poverty and suffering and will eventually make the planet unsuitable for human life. How am I supposed to see you as a sane individual when you still support this.

>>

 No.13180

>>13179
Pretty good post

>>

 No.13182

>>13179
So in other words, you disagree both with monetization *and* with barter.

So how would you distribute resources to people in your society? Do people get to choose what they receive and how much, no matter how ridiculous their request? If not, who defines and controls how much and what resources a person ought to be responsible for, and how they use it? How do you control who gets water and how much during a drought (like the one in California)? Who distributes the resources from the source to their destinations and (how) are they held accountable?

Secondly, how do you stop monetization or collection of resources? If you allot two liters of cola to every family, and the Johnsons do the housework for the Joneses in exchange for their cola, but they *save* the excess cola and make a trade for something else, etc. how do you stop them from not ending up with that extra yacht after three generations? Are you going to take it from them?

Thirdly, how would you run what today we know as businesses? Who mans the soykafty jobs nobody wants to do, but someone does? Who works in the factories? How does an organization acquire a steel mill or a chip fab to do their manufacturing? Who decides how the equipment should be used, if it's okay to build a broken glass factory next to a preschool, or how waste should be disposed of? Who will be responsible for flying the jets that are used to defend against our capitalist pig neighbors? Who can buy guns and how are they allowed to use them?

>>

 No.13183

>>13179
Look, I'm not exactly a staunch defender of capitalism nor am I steeped in the terminology but you don't seem to know what a CEO is. He's not the owner and he's not an absolute dictator in the slightest. He's answerable to a board of directors or some soykaf and they can fire him if he is like kicking dead whales down the beach, which does happen.

>>

 No.13185

>>13183
Yes it happens but, the board needs him to control the finer points of the company for them, he is like a dictator in that he is the embodiment of the colective will of the board, they can't eliminate his role completely. He offers no benefit to society but he lines the board's pockets. Thus his role is unessecary and so too are the board's, since they only exist to make profit for themselves and contribute nothing of worth the majority. That is the danger of corporations, they are entities comprised of money hungry molerats, digging in all directions, who are blind to the effects of their actions due to how far removed they are from them.

>>

 No.13186

>>13185
*to the majority

>>

 No.13187

>>13185
If your main point is that positions like that are useless to society as a whole then we're in agreement on that. A whole lot of other occupations could be done away with as well.

A dictator who can be replaced isn't what I'd call a dictator at all but it seems you meant the position itself and not the stuffed suit filling it. OK.

>>

 No.13188

>>13182
Who ever said anything about barter?
>How would you distribute resources
Simple, if someone has something you or your organization needs you give them something they want, However no one can own what they can't use so say if Steve says he has 300 gigaliters of water and the community down the road is almost out, they can just nab that water off him.

>What about the fancy boats?

If they end up with a yacht good for them, they worked hard for it. However if it gets to the point where you have more yachts than you could use and you don't intend to trade for them, those yachts will be happily taken by Steve who enjoys putting about on his dinghy in his downtime and could use the upgrade.

>How would industry/business continue

>Who mans boring jobs
Well, boring jobs would be better paid, since no one wants to do them they would be in high demand
>Who works in the factories
Again, whoever wants to, keeping in mind that since there is an equal exchange of labour, these jobs are better paid.
>Factories and stuff
Since some one wants a service or they require labour done they will pay someone for it. If an organization wants materials to build a factory they will order the raw materials from whoever harvests and refines them. They will then sell their factory to a group who wants to use it, who will then manufacture goods and sell them to end users. The people in the factory will use whatever tools and methods they deem necessary to making a product that will sell, no one controls them.
>Who makes the rules
Literally no one. That is what anarchy is. Of course if a community dislikes a organization or their methods, they can easily boycott them or drive them out with force. As for military, the communities and organizations under threat from the capitalist pigs will pay pilots and experienced fighters to defend against the porkies, pretty simple. Gun control would be non existent, but don't expect the communities to play nice with reckless shooters.

>>

 No.13189

>>13188
>Who mans boring jobs
or machines

>>

 No.13190

>>13189
Yes true that.

>>

 No.13194

>>13188
>Of course if a community dislikes a organization or their methods, they can easily boycott them or drive them out with force.

Yeah and you can do that today. I mean, the real problem isn't capitalism. You used words like "pay" and "buy" a number of times, even for a supposed anarchistic political utopia. The problem isn't even that some people have acquired a lot of wealth. As you say, it's okay to have a yacht, even though such a thing is extremely lavish and predominantly non-functional. The problem is that the people who are getting exploited have literally nowhere to go. If I think the United States is fuarrrked up and doing fuarrrked up things, my options are... uhh... the Phillipines? Iraq? Zimbabwe? None of those are free. Getting a citizenship in any of these countries is a completely different matter, and so is getting a job that's as good as my one in America. The problem is that there is no more land of the free, because there is no more land.

Humans are reaching the ecological limits of our planet. *That* is the problem, not a majority of the legal systems we impose on people. Granted, some legal systems are oppressive, others are extremely effective in giving people what people need; but ultimately it wouldn't have to matter if they could just go somewhere else.

You seem to believe very fondly that people are able to share rationally, and I like the attitude, but I think it's leaning on the edge of idealistic. The example of 300gigaliters of water is a little extreme. Different people have different concepts of what they "need" or "use", of when they have given "enough", and I think that leads to a lot of confusion if the disparity in wealth and policy is a little different.

Greece is a real-world example of how "cultural differences" and personal preference can get in the way of things working out great in a socialistic nation. Greece is like the teeny-bopper with mommy's credit card. If you ask the Greek and the German if Greek expenditures are out of control on, for example, pensions, the Greek will say no and the German will say yes. Now, Greece is full of capable people: people with good brains, able-bodied people. Why don't they, on average, want to work like the average German? Why are they taking out loans they can't pay off? And most importantly, why are the people in charge promising these things to people in elections, even when they know the consequences, and arguably winning because of it?

Let's take it to the next level: if the Greeks want to *not* change their policy and want to keep receiving bailouts from Germany, what should Germany do? The average German certainly doesn't have a lot in terms of possessions, less than the average American. Should they feel compelled - no, obligated - to give their wealth to Greece, even though Greece is not really giving back, and it could increase poverty in Germany, or even worse, the collapse of the European Union? I mean, let's face it: Germany could probably afford to cut back a little more, and if they don't put food in the mouths of Greece, Greeks could *die*! If the Germans tighten their belt and work even harder, telling themselves that they need less and less for the sake of the greater good, and the Greeks keep their obscene pensions without doing anything, maybe even claiming that they need even more, it's not hard to see how the Greeks could end up exploiting the Germans if something isn't done.

>>

 No.13203

>>13194
>Yeah and you can do that today.
Last time I checked you can't, it is against the law to violently drive out any individual or organization and many communities rely on corporations and companies for jobs, since the organizations own the means of production.

>You used words like "pay" and "buy"

Yes, Anarchy and markets are not mutually exclusive if you want something you have to give whoever has that thing something they need.
>As you say , it's okay to have a yacht
Not if that yacht is private property in which case it can be taken. It becomes private property when the owner no longer has the means to move, maintain, inhabit, live off of or use the property. Therefor if you don't own a car you can drive that you can use to pull the yacht, don't posses the skill to properly oil and maintain the yacht or you don't have the skill or necessary equipment to sail the yacht.
>You seem to believe very fondly that people are able to share rationally
Well I know for a fact that I am and others must be too. Not necessarily everyone has to be able to, just enough people to for a community. Anarchy would not be a utopia, in the beginning communities will fall and rise, human rights will be violated and thousands will die but at the same time, the people who make the right decisions, decisions that are not too hard to make, will come together out of a will to survive and make strong communities and organizations which will stand the test of time. I don't care about America and Zimbabwe, they can bungle about as much as they like as long as myself and the people I care about are living in the best way humanly possible, I will be happy. Others can join us if they'd like but if they violate our freedoms we will fuarrrk them up.
>Cultures n' Germans n' stuff
Again if you want to be dysfunctional that’s up to you, what Germany should do is none of my concern and I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.
>the ecological limit
Give me a reason, any reason other than your opinion on why this is the reason that there is no more freedom. The majority of legal systems are actually facilitating taking land away from you. For example in my country house prices have skyrocketed despite the fact that there are numerous empty homes bought by rich farts who couldn't possibly ever live in them. In an anarchist society young homeowners would be living in those houses. Another example is how we now have so much stuff that we need to have things put away in storage, if you've ever seen auction hunters you know what I mean, huge storage sheds of things that people can no longer use but still technically own. Someone could be using those materials or even living in those sheds.

>>

 No.13204

File: 1437236121804.gif (10.12 KB, 236x235, aaastar.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>13194
>You seem to believe very fondly that people are able to share rationally
If you look at tribal societies, sharing was always a part of their culture. The group may ridicule the hunter who fails at his job but they won't let his family starve either. They will also keep elderly people around even when they can't work anymore because they have lore and wisdom which the group needs.

>The problem is that there is no more land of the free, because there is no more land.

W- we'll f- find a place (pic related)

>>

 No.13219

>>13203
Well, my problem with anarchy is that I know for sure there are parasites out there. They aren't all CEOs or political figures, a lot of them are 'normal' people. There is nearly an entire country of them (Greece). Even if people aren't slaves physically, they shouldn't have to be slaves ideologically either. If I don't want to give my soykaf to people who I think are lazy uncooperative parasites, why should I? Who would you or your 'clan' be to stop me? Do you really think it's your place to force your ideals on me? It doesn't matter whether you have one dollar or a million, whether you're a drunken hobo or the president of the United Stares, if you find a way to force the same restrictions on me then the oppression is the same to me.

>>

 No.13222

>>13219
You've totaly missed the point. Parasites won't be supported because no one wants too, and if someone does it's their loss. The whole idea of anarchy is that you aren't forced to do anything and I don't know where you got this notion of being forced to give your stuff to freeloaders. There would be no social security under Anarchy unless the community wants there to be and even then there is no obligation for you to do anything you don't want to do. I feel like you're getting anarchy mixed up with communism or social democracy because the whole idea of Anarchy is that nothing is official, nothing is forced and you can live however you want.

>>

 No.13225

File: 1437289067987.jpg (35.17 KB, 538x367, Kronstadt Sailors.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

There is something really futile about these types of discussions. There is too much it-would-be and just-human-nature and other related unsubstantiated axiomatic mumbo jumbo. Not enough examples of times in history when people actually got it right however briefly and what they could have done differently. What we could do differently next time. Theory isn't a waste of time but it should be born out of either history or direct experience, not just based on what you want the world to be like.

>>

 No.13226

>>13225
It would be nice to test some of this stuff out but I think the purpose of this tread has become to convince non anarchists to become anarchist instead of exchanging theories and techniques. In fact to have a decent discussion at all we may need some kind of dedicated anarchist board or at least a board for discussion of anti-authoritarian "government", rebellion and dissent with a dedicated noob thread. Some of the questions asked here are so trivial it isn't funny, and they are really destroying the potential for more higher-level discussion about the finer points.

>>

 No.13228

File: 1437293093259.jpg (141.54 KB, 1268x713, CNT with captured cannon 1….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>13226
Presenting viable theories IS the only way to convince anyone. And the questions being asked aren't "trivial" considering you're expecting people to reconsider things most of us have taken for granted for our entire lives. There's no reason why people shouldn't ask for some kind of evidence first.

>>

 No.13231

File: 1437296355655.png (198.68 KB, 350x558, 1435267006887.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>13219
> There is nearly an entire country of [parasites] (Greece).

>>

 No.13235

>>13219
so explain exactly why greece is full of parasites
because they refuse to pay an ilegitimate debt that was created for a neonazi goverment?
or because they refuse to pull austerity on his population

>>

 No.13345

>>12967
>Your original argument was that disagreements over resources could be resolved through a plethora of choices (that's called a market btw). This works in a system like Linux, because there is no capital, there are no resources, there is only labor. You can freely and easily go your own way without any need to divide resources.

Momentary capital isn't the only kind of capital. Status, self-esteem and etc are all as important human motivations as material wealth (if not more so.).

I agree with your larger point, though.

>>

 No.13346

>>12998
>Anarcho capitalism is essentially slavery to corporations.

And anarcho-communism is slavery to the commune, and statism is slavery to the state. syndicalism is slavery to unions.

>>

 No.13349

>>13346
Leaving your commune would be as simple as walking out the door. You don't even need to find another if you think you can survive alone.

>>

 No.13361

>>13349
>>13346
I think a lot of these ideologies have lagged when it comes to keeping pace with changes in industry and society. People were living soykafty lives working for others and so collectivizing their soykafty farm or factory and making it better seemed like a good idea. Work is so transient nowadays though and people move around so much more. It'd be hard to maintain collectives in an economy like ours. Even the collective restaurants that survive generally have a high turnover because of the way people travel and relocate so often, it's just that the structure is solid enough to be passed on easily.

>>

 No.13374

>>13349
>Leaving your commune would be as simple as walking out the door.
And if you don't like rising rents in San Francisco, the poor can just leave the city! Are you seeing the problem with this logic yet?

protip: homes are not commodities that fit into clean economic and political theories

If there's one thing leftists and capitalists can agree on, it appears to be "people should just stop having an emotional attachment to anything."

>>

 No.13381

>>13374
Well said. A lot of Native American tribes had a policy that if a warrior didn't like the chief's decisions he could "vote with his feet", meaning leave the group. Imagine how painful it would be to finally exercise that right, leaving friends and family behind.

>>

 No.13383

>>13374
If there were several communes around, that wouldn't be a problem. You could simply join another which aligns more with your views.

> "people should just stop having an emotional attachment to anything."


If you wrote 'anything' as two words, namely people shouldn't get attached to any things, I would actually agree. Which also makes moving around easier and cheaper, and which generally reduces your need for money drastically.

>>

 No.13386

>>13383
>If there were several communes around, that wouldn't be a problem. You could simply join another which aligns more with your views.
Again, that works nicely in your theoretical world, but the fact of the matter is, expecting people to be able to uproot themselves from where they've lived for who knows how long (possibly, hell likely, generations) based on a god damn political policy is a fuarrrked up expectation. You're literally making the same argument as the morons who say "Well if you don't like America then you can just giiiiit out!"

>If you wrote 'anything' as two words, namely people shouldn't get attached to any things, I would actually agree.

That may be nice in theory, and fit into your early-christian morality, but how the hell do you even define a "thing"? Is my left arm a "thing"? Is the food I eat a "thing"? What about the food I'm digesting? Is my dog a "thing"? All of these "things" could appear separate to the identity of "me", but that's obviously just arbitrary platonic bullsoykaf. My left arm is part of who I am, both in a physical sense and in a psychological one. The same is true of my food, and my family. You think I would be the same person if I was exposed to completely different stimuli? Hell no. To say my home is just a "thing" is to completely separate it from the actual meaning of the word. It's not just some place where I sleep, it's a mental construct that has, in part, defined who the fuarrrk I actually am. YOU may value a more ethereal notion of home, but who the fuarrrk are you to say the rest of us have to follow your definition of self?

>>

 No.13390

>>13386
> expecting people to be able to uproot themselves from where they've lived for who knows how long

People do that all the time. US census data from 2013 says that 40 million people moved in that year. Half of which within the same county, the rest moved for a greater distance. 20kk. In 2013 alone. I live in a state capital. I work with a dozen colleagues. Exactly one of them is native to said capital. Half of them aren't even native to this state, including myself. People uproot themselves all the time. There's nothing extraordinary about that.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/files/cps/cps2014/tab01-01.csv

>>

 No.13391

>>13390
So you agree that essentially all Federal laws should be struck down and people should simply move to the State which is closest to their preference?

>>

 No.13392

>>13390
Are you a fuarrrking moron, or trolling? Because I don't remember my argument being "nobody moves, ever."

>>

 No.13393

>>13392
> Are you a fuarrrking moron, or trolling?

Exactly my thoughts about >>13386. I simply can not wrap my head around this pile of ignorance. Is my left arm a thing, hurpdurp.

>>

 No.13396

>>13393
You're not exactly doing yourself any favors.

>>

 No.13516

>>12674
>Well you would not lose it, it would simply be shared.
Only so many people can use an object at a time, and there's a limited amount of any given resource. If my objects and resources are shared with other people, then my usage of those objects becomes more limited, and my part of those resources decreases.

Honestly, I think my biggest problem with any kind of socialism is that it makes it more difficult conceptually for me to use an army of robots to take over the world if I can't, "Own," it.

>>

 No.13529

>>13516
>Honestly, I think my biggest problem with any kind of socialism is that it makes it more difficult conceptually for me to use an army of robots to take over the world if I can't, "Own," it.
Something tells me socialism will never be your biggest impediment.

>>

 No.13531

>>13529
heh. I have this old book that was my dad's called Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague de Camp. He makes a convincing argument that human history has been shaped not primarily by ideology or political ideas but more that the appropriate political system becomes current when the appropriate technology appears to make it work. Feudalism happened because the right iron age technology allowed for armies of that sort to be effective; 20th century communism happened because of electricity and railroads. Likewise I am reluctant to make predictions about any future social orders in the era of quadrotor drones and instant access to information, and when there is a smartphone in every other 13 year old's pocket having more computing power than NASA had during the Apollo project.

>>

 No.14000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1L7IbUDM8k

Does anyone know any unclaimed territories?

>>

 No.14005

>>14000
Nice get, m8

>>

 No.14012

>>14000
Luna, Ganymede, Titan, Ceres, Europa... I think Mars is still available too last time I checked.

>>

 No.14034

>>14012
Preferably something on this planet. Man made constructions on the sea also count.

>>

 No.14234

Could anyone tell me which are the best books by Bakhunin?
I want to read them.

>>

 No.14235

File: 1440454760927.png (182.33 KB, 442x334, 1440234941241.png) ImgOps iqdb

>this thread
Knowing you is a privilege lainons.

>>

 No.14236

File: 1440455078679-0.png (52.54 KB, 2138x738, 1439590206419.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1440455078679-1.png (408.53 KB, 1320x1414, 1439603339287.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1440455078679-2.png (98.66 KB, 915x301, 1439603537785.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>14012
>Space-Anarchism
Been done, love it.


>>

 No.14242

>>14238
>Imagine a queer commune orbiting Uranus
fucking gold 10/10 article where do I sign up

>>

 No.14306

File: 1440558866427.png (80 KB, 680x679, nietstevangenhier.png) ImgOps iqdb


>>

 No.14434

>>14242
I saw your post before I saw the one it refers to and thought it was about "Trouble on Triton" by SR Delaney.

(Triton is a moon of Neptune I know but libertarian communes on the satellites of Ur-Anus and the others are all mentioned).

>>

 No.14444

This thread has got me curious about what the political views are of the average lainon. Would people be opposed to me putting up a needlepoll?

>>

 No.14445

>>14444
I wouldn't bother. We had a similar thread a while back and the average Lain unsurprisingly leans to the moderate/far left and is devoutly anti-authoritarian.

>>

 No.14446

File: 1440745813916.gif (633.58 KB, 500x460, 1386146013063.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>14445
That appears to be the case but it seemed too good to be true.

>>

 No.14517

File: 1440867191236.png (20.55 KB, 201x120, bienlogo-baseline-small.png) ImgOps iqdb

What are you achro-soc'rs opinion on basic income?

>>13068
Also; in a capitalist society I think bankers are the one very much needed service. A wealth distribution through loans (arguably debt slavery) but this is the only way to distribute wealth due to lack of tax reform.

>>

 No.14523

>>14306
What?

>>14517
Commercial Banking is simple usury - just look at the housing bubble to see what happens when you supplant loans for ensuring a liveable wage, non-profit cooperative banking is the way to go. One which would loan "on the company" rather than the individual and thus only loan for business ventures.

Basic income is honestly the only way make free market economies work in the long run, as it's the only thing that can ensure there's enough demand for it to go around. If people can always be assured they'll always get through the month they'll be more willing to consume luxury goods. Muralist, syndicalist or socialist (of all it's variants) I can't imagine any of them being against basic income.

>>

 No.14667

How would anarchy even work? Wouldnt just the people opposing anarchy create a new gubbmint?

>>

 No.14674

>>14667
The question is if those kinds of people would be in the majority?
Also you are implying like we would implement some kind of "Global worldwide anarchy". Which is wrong.

people who would like anarchy would move into anarchist communes, those who would not would either move out of them or never actually move into them.
Those who would still not move out would eventually become the minority anyways.

>>

 No.14676

Ahhh yes, ok, another anarchy discussion.

Guys I'm sorry but I must say that this politic is bullsoykaf.

The world revolves all around power and there will ALWAYS be someone to fill in the power vacuum even if all world leaders and governments disappear over night.

In the current state of affairs, groups and individuals normally fight for power with their equals on the power heirarchy, governments fight with governments, politicians fight with politicians, corporations compete with corporations.

All these groups have some amount of power, now disregarding conspiracy theory bullshit, if we pretend that the most powerful people in the world are the leaders of some powerful countries, religions and companies, that would mean that the 7 billion people who live in the world are under the leadership of around 200 men, each one who is powerful enough to impact our lives in one way or another.

>>

 No.14677


Now think about it. The whole world is divided into 200 parts among 200 men all of whom are competing with each other for power.

If there were less factions, there would be less power struggles and more peace. If there were only 3 major factions, like only 3 nations controlling the world efficiently enough that citizens wouldn't want to rebel, there would be a lot less wars than there is now and much less if power over the world was concentrated into just one group or person (because in doing so you establish a monoploy on power and have an undivided position on hierarchy)

>>

 No.14678

But what anarchists want to achieve is basically abolishing that hierarchy and a) distributing power so that everyone has an equal amount and b) penalizing anyone who has a significantly high portion. Funny thing is, they have yet to demonstrate both a and b in practice.

A lot of books have been written about this and fancy theories have been thought up but come on, there has never been a real anarchist country in the world, the ones that did either got colonized or were taking over by countries that wanted to fill in the void.

Even communists had better success.

Not to mention also that without a government to keep the country in order you wouldn't have an economy or a civilisation, you wouldn't have the internet on which you're writing on, a country with no government is like a man with no bones!

Now again, I'm sure you have a lot of fancy literature to cite and you know a lot of fancy theories, but name at least one civialized and prosperous country without a government and how long has it stayed that way?

>>

 No.14686

>>14678
Catalonia in the 1930's. This has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, which you didn't read.

>>

 No.14706

>>14678
In addition to Catalonia I'd like to point out that no body had tried democracy before anybody had tried democracy, really shitty logic there mate.

>>

 No.14711

>>14686
>>14706
But where is your Catalonia now? I know about the Spanish civil war, but let's be serious now, the few anarchist societies that existed were always during some sort of power vacuum when a nation lacked a firm government and factions were fighting for power, either that or it was some society within the territory and under the protection of host a host nation.

Even now if you want a great example of an anarchist country, you can look at Somalia, there is no civilization, no economy, no technological progress, nothing, just chaos, but still for some reason you people choose to deny the most basic facts and pretend like somehow human beings will just live happy peaceful lives and all the problems with your "theory" will magically be solved.

Democracy has existed since times of antiquity, but what's more important is that when they attempted it, even back then in it's primitive state it worked, but how is it that right now, so far into the future with all of our achievements there has been no examples successful independant anarchist nations which aren't in a state of civil war or a power struggle between factions?

I can listen to communists and what they say because at the very least the USSR has existed for quite some time and it has enjoyed periods of prosperity but the only thing anarchists have to offer is their pathetic theories and their only shining example which is "Spain during WW2" (without which I don't know what they will do),

So ok what else? You had Spain, I will give you that but do you even have anything else to show as an example? We live in an advanced point of our existence where so much has already been tried and tested but if you can't list at least 10 countries that successfully carried out your political theory then I can't help but say it's bullsoykaf and you would do better arguing about more important political concepts instead of trying to be a unique snowflake that doesn't subscribe to anything too "mainstream" or whatever.

>>

 No.14713

>>14711
Wow you're a salty cunt aren't you.
>more important political concepts instead of trying to be a unique snowflake that doesn't subscribe to anything too "mainstream" or whatever.
Fuck off mate, why don't you stop acting all high and mighty retard, boy how rustled are you. I believe that the only reason anarchy has not yet been achieved is because technological constraints and an already entrenched global order. Democracy only requires language, give a yes or no if you agree. Anarchism on an national scale on the other-hand requires advanced telecommunications technology for adequate coordination. I can’t list 10 nations that have successfully maintained anarchy but before the renaissance there were no stable national democracies either (Not counting the shitty middle ages ones). I want to try out Anarchy because I am sick of seeing the constant power cycle repeat itself and crisis after crisis shake the world in seven year intervals and I don't care if you want proof it works because you won't have any. As for somalia, that is only Anarchy in the sense that it has no law, if we go by Kant's four types of government as a guide, Somalia would be classified as Barbarism as it should be. Also I don't know if this is enough to appease your proof seeking but

Ungoverned communities
The entrance of Freetown Christiania, a Danish neighborhood autonomous from local government controls.

Zomia, Southeast Asian highlands beyond control of governments
Icelandic Commonwealth (930–1262 CE)
Ireland for 2000 years prior to Cromwell's invasion
Republic of Cospaia[citation needed] (1440-1826)
Anarchy in the United States (17th century)
The Diggers (England, 1649–1651)
Libertatia (late 17th century)
Neutral Moresnet (June 26, 1816 – June 28, 1919)
Kibbutz, a community movement in Israel initially influenced by anarchist philosophy (Palestine, 1909–1948)
Kowloon Walled City was a largely ungoverned squatter settlement from the mid 1940s until the early 1970s
Drop City, the first rural hippie commune (Colorado 1965–1977)
Comunidad de Población en Resistencia (CPR), indigenous movement (Guatemala, 1988–)
Slab City, squatted RV desert community (California 1965-)
The 27 Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (January 1, 1994 – present)
Abahlali baseMjondolo, a South African social movement (2005–)

Anarchist communities
Main article: List of anarchist communities

Anarchists have been involved in a wide variety of communities. While there are only a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, there are also examples of intentional communities founded by anarchists.

Intentional communities

Utopia, Ohio (1847)
Whiteway Colony (1898)
Life and Labor Commune (1921)
Freetown Christiania (September 26, 1971)
Trumbullplex (1993)

Mass societies

Free Territory (Ukraine, November 1918 – 1921)
Anarchist Catalonia (July 21, 1936 – May 1939)
Autonomous Shinmin Region (1929–1932)

>>

 No.14717

>>14711
>Even now if you want a great example of an anarchist country, you can look at Somalia
>pathetic theories
>trying to be a unique snowflake
why even bother responding to stuff like this.

also
>all theories and all thoughts are worthless unless they are already applied

>>

 No.14724

>>14720
>>[Marxism] and self-government are mutually exclusive.
>How?

What do you mean How? He literally wrote three paragraphs explaining how. Maybe you should try addressing his actual arguments because he knew exactly what he was talking about.

>> They will still require a governing entity

>Yeah, self-governing entities. Anarchists are not against order, they are against outside governing forced on them (which is a form of hierarchy). There's nothing wrong with stopping people from limiting others' freedoms.

Can you elaborate a little on this, especially what you mean by outside governing, in the context of an individual living in an anarchist commune.

>Also, you don't get to decide what's fit and what's not.


What do you even mean by this?

>Darwinism does not necessarily means free for all, cooperation and mutual aid are very successful strategies.


Yes it does. That's literally what it means. Survival of the fittest is a free for all. Of course people are free to try cooperation and mutual aid, just as people are free to take over your commune with force.

>>14722

Can you stop brewing soykaf and get to the point, please? What makes you think those things are mutually exclusive? Cyberpunk as a scene is generally anti-authoritarian, but why does that mean I can't enjoy the aesthetic or literature?

>>

 No.14725

>>14724
>>14724
>That's literally what it means. Survival of the fittest is a free for all
that's not what it means. learn biology. survival of the fittest means survival of the ones who are best adjusted to their environment.
herds exist, and people have (partially) thrived because they lived in cooperating groups.

>>

 No.14728

File: 1441131200446.jpg (96.41 KB, 720x960, UHNQG10.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>14724
They wrote three paragraphs about how individuals can't function as a government. But self-governance is not limited to individuals, it simply means that the governors and the governed are the same. Workers' councils and the like.

>>

 No.14742

>>14725
The fittest hardly ever survive. It's those who can outcompete the others who survive, which isn't the same thing.

>>

 No.14748

>>14742
>the fittest hardly ever survive.
well, that's not what darwin and modern biology says.
>It's those who can outcompete the others who survive
'outcompete' is vague and it doesn't say anything about how you can outcompete 'the others'

>>

 No.14755

>>14748
There's this thing called evolutionary drift, where species evolve traits that have no benefit to themselves. There's also sexual selection, which can be thought of as analogous to fitness selection but often causes species to evolve traits that are worse for them in the long run.

>>

 No.14756

>>14755
It's genetic drift and species don't evolve traits that are useless to themselves as a rule.
If a trait comes up due to mutation it (has a chance to) either flourish because it's beneficial, stay or die out if it's neutral, or die out because it's detrimental
And genetic diversity is healthy for any species because it allows for adaption.
>often causes species to evolve traits that are worse for them in the long run
Not really
But anyways, you seem to be forgetting that evolution has no higher goal or higher purpose. Genetic mutants pop up and die out. The only 'rule' we see is that the species who are best adapted to their environment thrive. Species also evolve according to their environment.
Anyways, all of this is quite irrelevant imo.

>>

 No.14777

>>14711
> But where is your Catalonia now?

They made mistakes. Military mistakes, but that doesn't mean they were wrong in all regards or that we can't learn from their history.

>>

 No.14778

>>14756
>don't evolve traits that are useless to themselves as a rule.
But "useful" (aka the environment) changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_trap
And we humans have already modified earth a lot. We also do that faster than evolution really comes into effect, you need a few millennia of death for that.

>>

 No.14781

>>14778
yes, you can't know beforehand which ones will be useful and which won't. if the environment changes (gradually) and the species can't adapt, they die out or reduce significantly, but if they didn't evolve traits that are useful at that time-span then any possible future change becomes irrelevant because they wouldn't be able to live (or at least thrive) in their current circumstances in the first place.
>And we humans have already modified earth a lot. We also do that faster than evolution really comes into effect, you need a few millennia of death for that
Yes, we see species go extinct because of global warming because the change is too rapid.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck)
Nature influencing one's lifespan (i.e. the fact that we can die) and living organisms having genes is the cause of evolution. We have mostly liberated ourselves from the cause (except for some diseases, natural disasters and etc of course).
We don't require a broader beak to eat from a certain tree or something like that. We are less dependent on evolution than animals because we adapt through technology (like we have always done) and less by evolution (this also causes us to adapt more quickly to more rapid changes too).

>>

 No.15736

>>14724
It means that no authority is forced on you without your consent.

>>

 No.15816

Hey guys, nice thread!

>Anarchism

I never believed anarchism because it seems to me that if we government went out, the power would effectivelly go to some person/corporation with huge amounts of powers, and that would just be a step back from democracy.

>Cooperatives

It seems to me that cooperatives are to companies what democracies are to oligarchies/dictatures. It would seem a logical step for them to overtake regular companies just democracies did in the developed world. I just have a hard time seeins what would the necessary condition for this to happen.

>Capitalism

Marx said that one of the distinctive characteristics of capitalism was the fact that the working class had lost the access to the productive capital, having no choice but to sell its working power.

It seems to me that 3d-printers and stuff are going into the direction of giving the regular person access to a larger pool of productive options, what do you think?

>>

 No.16858

Bump

>>

 No.16869

>>14713
Note how every anarchist society lasted for no more than a few years at most. For some reason, anarchists think that this is evidence of viability, and not the opposite.

If a society can be easily destroyed by outside elements, that's a FLAW of that society, not a grave injustice committed against it. EVERY society has to stand up to pressures external and internal.

>>

 No.16897

>>16869
How is the failing of a society due to significant threats against it an argument against the viability of that society? If it were the hierarchical, capitalist model that were being threatened, you'd see a similar collapse as happened with those working to build anarchist societies. It isn't an accurate measure of the viability or sustainability of the system in and of itself.

>>

 No.16913

>>16869
I'm no revolutionary anarchist, but you're a damn fool if you can't see that most of the societies anarchism draws influence from lasted for thousands of years. Even the heretic communes in the middle ages would generally last for around two generations before one of the many invaders would take them down -- this is actually a major point in Caliban and the Witch in arguing against enclosure of the commons as a classically Marxist progression towards communism. Shit, even Makhno's Ukraine won two of the three wars it fought in (unfortunately for them, all it takes is one), and they were basically just a mass of pissed off, uneducated peasants.

That said, I do agree that revolutionary anarchism has basically no relevance in contemporary western society, nor a snowball's chance in hell of ever being relevant again. The closest would be Greek insurrectionism, but they basically blew their load at least twice now with nothing to show for it, and even if they had, the insurrectionist anarchists there have no love for the leftists, and vice versa (even more so than, say, in the US). The YPG/PKK/Rojava is an interesting counterpoint, and falls outside of my understanding of things in being decidedly non-western (and I hope we all know how much of a clusterfuck Syria is), but if I had to bet, I'd say that there will eventually be enough tension between the classical libertarian elements and the Kurdish nationalist elements to the point that a state ends up being formally constructed to provide some kind of balance. Which is honestly pretty damn close to what they had in pre-war Catalonia, but hardly what classical leftist anarchists are shooting for.

>>

 No.17339

>>13022
It's a way to dehumanize them.

>>

 No.17349

>>16869
Just because a society can withstand external/internal pressure it does not mean that it has superior quality of life.

A dictatorship can withstand so much pressure, but it is soykaf on the quality of life part.

>>

 No.17382

File: 1444627016247.jpg (1001.85 KB, 1000x1500, 1309845984930.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>17339
#StopTehPatriarchy

>>

 No.17386

File: 1444630121535.gif (958.37 KB, 500x700, mein.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>15736
>It means that no authority is forced on you without your consent.
So imagine a member of the commune becomes infected by an outside meme. How do you stop them from spreading it and infecting your children without using a form of authority over them?

>>

 No.17387

>>15736
This is a nonsensical statement. If some authority has your consent to rule, then it is not forced on you.

>>

 No.17448

>>17387
You're being a pedant, they could have just as easily said "No authority without consent."

>>17386
You can't. This was a point of discussion at the last BASTARD conference - how do we as anarchists interact with beneficent authority? Parenting was a commonly used reference point. There were a myriad of views, but the person who organized the discussion believes that there is no beneficent authority, and that anarchists should be opposed to all forms of authority, even though living outside the scope of any authority is unfeasible. He kind of just threw it in at the end, since he didn't want his views as moderator to set the direction of the discussion that heavily, so I couldn't get a full explanation, but I interpreted it as such: Much like we can't always be happy, nor should we always be happy, we should always strive to be happy, as much as possible. For example, the moderator has a job as instructor for some construction-related thing, and is therefore in a position of authority. They would like to see that job cease to be necessary, but for now, it is (at the very least, for them, for survival). Contrast this with other ideologies, like fascism, where where you construct as much authority as possible, or liberalism, where you try to make authority as beneficent as possible.

Another view given was the one you're replying to, where the important factor is consent, succinctly described by Bakunin as "In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker". While the moderator at the BASTARD panel believed that authority should be opposed in all forms, as much as we possibly can, people who value consent of authority believe that as long as both the entity with authority and the entity subjugated to that authority, are in agreement that this relationship should exist, it's fine. This view gets into a gray area around children, and whether children are capable of consent. One example someone gave is at their job as a kind of social worker, there was an orphaned teenager living in the person's collective house, who had problems with school. One day, the teen did something so egregious, the social worker told them to go to their room. The teen got pissed, but did it anyway. How does consent factor into this story? The teen had no real obligation to do this - the social worker was maybe 5 years older than the teen was, and had no actual recourse if they didn't listen. So why did they? The answer could be either 1. some kind of consent, or 2. the very definition of authority, which is an inherently social construct, and its distinction from power. That is to say, if you physically stop someone from doing something, well that's not authority, it's power. If you use a social position to stop someone from doing something, well that's definitely authority, but where does the distinction lie between "consenting" to this social phenomenon and not? Coercion, maybe?

It's definitely something I'm interested in hearing some opinions on, including ones that aren't explicitly anarchist.

>>

 No.17457

>>17448
>but where does the distinction lie between "consenting" to this social phenomenon and not?
You need a sound definition of "consent" to answer this question.

>>

 No.17652

File: 1445005901957.jpg (58.29 KB, 710x690, dokurochananarchistcookboo….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Another meme

>>

 No.19110

Can anyone get me some good sources on cryptoanarchism?

>>

 No.19114

File: 1447337470879-0.pdf (367.99 KB, second-realm-strategy.pdf)

File: 1447337470879-1.pdf (615.54 KB, crypto_anarchist(2).pdf)

File: 1447337470879-2.pdf (501.87 KB, cryptoanarchist-manifesto.pdf)

>>19110
>cryptoanarchism
sci-fi for ancaps

>>

 No.19209

>>12750
You can "fork" a farm
If you just copy everything the lettuce people are doing, and then exchange lettuce for kale by trial and error, it will work. It might not be as efficient as a professional kale farm, but it will eventually work.

>>

 No.19220

>>12031
I'm allowed to own things but not locks and keys which prevent entry to certain geographical areas? What about criminals? There are legitimate psychopaths in this world. I'm supposed to take my chances while sleeping?

>>

 No.19222

>Let's do away with central authority imposed by coercion and redistribute wealth through centrally imposed coercion! There is no logical inconsistency here.

>>

 No.19231

File: 1447456400308.gif (1.45 MB, 480x270, bean.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>19222
>neurosuggesting there's no coercion in capitalism

>>

 No.19239

ayyy, mah leftist buds.

Who else is patiently waiting for neoliberalism to cannabalize itself so that the revolution can commence?

>>12053
anarchy isn't the absence of government, it's the absence of heirarchal government and of the state. You can have community-appointed executives in charge of keeping everything organized, a volunteer police force, and even a legal system. The basic premise of anarchy is that for something to be a "state" it must be designed to protect private property(aka private ownership of the means of production) and thus mustb e removed. Additionally a state claims sovereignty over its citizens, rather than the other way around.

>>

 No.19240

also, does anyone else think that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
was awesome?

>anarchist-socialist

>no central government
>everything self-organized
>fought off 3 separate invasions before dying

>>

 No.19244

>>19231
Hate to be that guy, but you missed his point entirely.

>>

 No.19245

>>19239
>The basic premise of anarchy is that for something to be a "state" it must be designed to protect private property(aka private ownership of the means of production) and thus mustb e removed
That's asinine. What's then the difference between state communism and anarchy? There is no difference by your definition, because it can't be a "state" without private ownership.

And you anarchists do realize that your computer is a "means of production", right? You willing to give up private ownership of it?

>Additionally a state claims sovereignty over its citizens, rather than the other way around.

That's just rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything practical.

>heirarchal government

Government is heirarchy. When everybody is on the same level, nobody has to follow orders, and thus there is no governing.

What you call "anarchy" just seems to be state communism, only you're really optimistic about it. They're "community-appointed" leaders, therefore nobody will dissent to their instructions, right? Minority opinion isn't a factor in anarchy, because why would there be differing opinions in a perfect system!

>>

 No.19246

>>19245
> state communism
What do you mean? Communism is stateless.

> You willing to give up private ownership of it?

I don't have to. It would be private property if someone else used it while I claimed ownership of it, and used this claim to steal part of the value they produce.

>>

 No.19247

>>19246
>Communism is stateless.
Then why do you bother saying "anarchy" instead of just saying "communism"?

>I don't have to. It would be private property if someone else used it while I claimed ownership of it, and used this claim to steal part of the value they produce.

So then I suppose you have no issue with automation bosses who fire their employees and replace them with robots.

>>

 No.19252

>>19220
Look here:
>>19239

>>19245
Just re-read the entire thread, everything has already been answered.

>>19247
The major difference lies in civil cultural liberties and the authority structure. I don't think you understand what either Marxist communism or anarchism are well enough to know the difference between those 2.

>>

 No.19254

>>19247
Because the world has figured out that communism doesn't work, so in order to ever be taken seriously modern Western communists have created the oxymoronic term "anarcho-communism" to describe their ideal utopia where the state doesn't exist except where it does.

>>

 No.19255

>>19231
There is no inherent coercion necessary for capitalism to exist. Capitalism is nothing but two people with goods or services the other wants and the freedom to exchange them at a price each feels is acceptable. That seems pretty in line with the proclaimed ideals of anarchism to me, unlike an economic system which requires a central authority using the threat of violence to force or forbid exchanges of goods and services in order to create a centrally planned economy.

>>

 No.19256

>>19255
>>19254
Holy fuarrrk you are so clueless it hurts.

>>

 No.19257

>>19256
Very informative response, must have seemed really worth posting at the time.

>>

 No.19258

>>19257
There's not much I can do, it would take weeks to teach you the basics. I mean seriously, reducing capitalism to trade? Communism having a central authority? Don't they teach history in school?

>>

 No.19259

>>19258
>reducing capitalism to trade
Because that's what it is. That you conflate the freedom to do with your own goods and services as you wish with a particular detrimental brand of capitalism corrupted by crony behavior between the state and corporate entities is your own prerogative, but it doesn't make it so.

And the only place communism exists without a state is on paper and in the heads of idealists.

>>

 No.19260

>>19259
And the only place where your brand of capitalism exists is also only on paper and the heads of idealists.

As long as there is greed capitalism will never function.

>>

 No.19261

>>19260
Same person here, I am just adding up:
And neither will communism or anarchism.

>>

 No.19262

>>19260
The difference is, I can describe capitalism which can take place outside of the existence of a central authority. I've yet to hear a way to institute a socialist economic system that doesn't happen at the end of a gun and doesn't rely on the rich just going along with it. How do you get people with more resources to contribute to the system instead of just leaving it?

>>

 No.19263

>>19259
Capitalism is a lot more than just trade. Remember, capitalism followed feudalism, before that we don't speak of capitalism, even though people traded since ancient times. Some defining characteristics of capitalism are private property, banking and wage labour. I'm sure you can easily think of others, too.

Communism never existed and it's debatable if ever will, but it's very stupid to confuse it with states governed by communist parties. Nobody every claimed to achieve communism, even their internal propaganda was about building it.

>>

 No.19264

>>19262
How could the rich own those resources without a state (or "private military" quasi-state) backing his claims of ownership with a threat of violence?

>>

 No.19265

>>19264
The same way you own your computer, by exchanging it for goods you received in exchange for labor you created. Are you suggesting that defending property one worked for is as immoral as taking property one didn't?

>>

 No.19266

>>19263
That the word didn't exist does not alter my point, that what we describe as "capitalism" is not something that exists by force, but rather is what happens when markets are left alone. I'm not interested in getting sidetracked into a semantic argument.

>>

 No.19268

>>19266
I said nothing about the words existence or markets being left alone. Capitalism is not just trade.

>>

 No.19269

>>19268
I misread a bit, regardless, everything you described is just an abstraction of free trade.

Banking is trade. Wage labor is trade. Private property is a necessity for trade to exist.

>>

 No.19270

>>19269
You can have trade without any of these existing, but that wouldn't be capitalism.
> Private property is a necessity for trade to exist.
No, it's not. I think the difference between private and personal property was explained before in this thread, try reading it.

>>

 No.19273

>>19270
>You can have trade without any of these existing, but that wouldn't be capitalism.
It also wouldn't be free trade, which is what I'm talking about.

>>

 No.19274

>>19273
Me again, in case this isn't clear, if you support placing restrictions on one's ability to exchange labor for monetary compensation, you are advocating for a restriction on trade. If you support placing restrictions on people lending each other money in exchange for agreed upon accrued interest, you are advocating for a restriction on trade.

Banking and wage labor are fundamentally just trade, so to say capitalism is more than trade then listing a bunch of ways trade happens just seems silly, unless you believe trade is different when it happens between groups of people instead of individuals.

>>

 No.19275

>>19245
>What's then the difference between state communism and anarchy? There is no difference by your definition, because it can't be a "state" without private ownership.

communism is stateless. You're thinking of socialism.

There's not really a big difference between an ideal communist society and an ideal anarchist society, but anarchists suppose that it's possible to skip the socialism part and make a non-heirarchal government and economy. The *outcomes* of that method are slightly different from the supposed outcomes of the capitalism->socialism->communism process.

>That's just rhetoric. It doesn't mean anything practical.

>Minority opinion isn't a factor in anarchy, because why would there be differing opinions in a perfect system!

a key component of anarchism is that it's voluntary. If you don't like it, you can just stop participating and nobody would stop you. Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the gist of it.

>Government is heirarchy. When everybody is on the same level, nobody has to follow orders, and thus there is no governing.


This is not true. Decisions can be made via direct vote and enforced by one's peers.

But an ideal anarchist system doesn't really have a central government, except for things like military matters.

>>

 No.19287

>>19275
>Obviously there are exceptions
Prick, if there are exceptions, then it is not a fuarrrking component.

Every single form of society affords you SOME degree of leeway.

"It's voluntary, except when it isn't." fuarrrking beautiful. What a brilliant system. Why isn't everybody a goddamn anarchist with this rock solid foundation of logic?

>This is not true. Decisions can be made via direct vote and enforced by one's peers.

Then the heirarchy has two levels, the majority on top and the minority on the bottom.

But don't worry, if you're in the minority, you don't have to listen to the majority! Except for when you do. And when you have to listen to them is decided not by some kind of constitution interpreted judiciously by trained people, but by "direct vote".

I fuarrrking hate you people. The more I talk to you anarchists, the more I realize how terrible you really are.

>>

 No.19288

>>19252
>Just re-read the entire thread, everything has already been answered.
None of the answers are substantial.

>>

 No.19291

>>19287
If your vote ends up in the minority...
You can always leave if you don't like something.

Mobility and flexibility are key for quality life. :)

>>

 No.19293

>>19287
Plus even if your vote ends up in the minority, nothing says that your vote will be forgotten and that you won't have some kind of influence on further decision making. Maybe you can suggest your alteration in some kind of commune wide brainstorming session. There are still people in the commune that care for you :)

>>

 No.19294

>>19291
>>19293
Or I could just gather up a group of like minded malcontents and stage a coup.

And since my enemies are a bunch of mewling pacifist pushovers, it would be pretty easy to kill them and place my clique in charge.

>>

 No.19295

>>19294
Then I could enslave the rest of the commune at gunpoint, seize the means of production, make myself king, and build up my military resources with the aim of expanding my conquests.

It's almost like this sort of thing has happened before.

>>

 No.19296

>>19294
You can do that in every system. The question is will you succeed and which system is better.

If you think that the system that survives is better, then you are just putting the needs of the system ahead of the needs of its individuals and are part of the problem.

>>19295
That way you are assuming that humanities default way of operating is anarchism, which it is not.
A better way to say is that crony capitalism, kingdoms and dictatorships were so far humanities default way of operation.



Delete Post [ ]
[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]